probe

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing the diagnostic content returned, specifically variable-frame-rate and rotation warnings, which an agent would not guess from the name alone. It still omits whether the tool touches the file, what happens on an unreadable path, and whether output is a structured report.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents trailing behind. Every clause earns its place as a distinct inspection field; the parenthetical warning list is efficient rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Remaining gaps (error behavior, exact output shape) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description does not compensate by stating whether it is a file path, directory, or whether globs/URLs are accepted. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a clip') and then enumerates exactly what is surfaced: resolution, fps, duration, codec, rotation, alpha and warnings. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of a 5 only because it never contrasts itself with siblings, though no sibling appears to perform inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. 'call before transcoding to detect variable frame rate'), and no mention of alternatives such as directly reading metadata elsewhere. The purpose implies inspection, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus the rest of the pipeline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.