get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what kind of metadata is reported, what happens with unsupported formats, or whether the file must be part of an open project.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the information the other dimensions lack.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description needed to explain return content and input expectations. For a 1-parameter inspection tool it says almost nothing an agent could act on beyond the name.

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% and the single parameter filePath has no description in the schema. The description mentions 'source video' and 'microphone audio' but never clarifies what filePath should point to for either case, leaving the only parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

The verb 'Inspect' with the resource 'source video or separate microphone audio' gives a rough sense of the tool, but it never says what information is returned or why a caller would want it. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings such as scan_frames or detect_silence, which also examine media files.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The phrase 'source video or separate microphone audio' hints at two input cases but does not explain how the caller signals which one applies.

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