inspect_media

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with them. It adds useful context by specifying 'no uploads' and restricting the input to local media paths, but it does not cover error behavior or return formatting.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, the output properties, the input constraint, and a side-effect guarantee. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately names what the tool reads and where the input must come from. It does not specify supported media formats or invalid-path behavior, but these are minor for this narrow read-only tool.

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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'path' with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the path as an 'absolute local media path,' which clarifies the required format and scope beyond the schema.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Read' and names exact output properties: duration, resolution, and audio presence. It also scopes the input as an 'absolute local media path,' which clearly identifies the tool as a read-only media inspection utility.

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving media metadata from local paths and clarifies that no uploads occur, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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