media_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool performs network I/O for URLs, whether it is read-only, or any side effects or limitations. The description only states its purpose without revealing operational traits, which is insufficient given zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear usage directive and a simple args listing. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero waste, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 simple dispatcher tool with one parameter and an output schema presumably describing the media type and qualifying tools, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core purpose, usage trigger, and parameter meaning. Minor details like error handling or network implications are absent but not critical given the output schema's existence and the tool's straightforward nature.

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%, but the description explicitly defines 'source' as a 'Local file path or URL', adding meaning beyond the bare schema string type. However, it does not elaborate on accepted formats, size limits, or network behavior, providing only minimal semantic enhancement.

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 description clearly states the tool identifies media type and routes to appropriate tools, with a specific verb ('identify') and resource ('file or URL'). It implies differentiation from siblings by positioning itself as the first step when media type is unknown, without needing to list every sibling.

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?

'Use this first when the media type is unknown' explicitly defines when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the implication that known media types should skip this tool is clear. This is slightly less than a full 5 because it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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