Inspect video or audio file

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that the operation is read-only, what happens if the file does not exist, whether the workspace path is a requirement or a restriction, or roughly what metadata comes back.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified rather than a virtue in itself.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema the description is the only place that could explain what 'media metadata' contains (duration, codec, resolution) and what a failure looks like. It omits both, leaving the agent guessing about the return payload.

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 single 'file' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds the 'inside the Videos workspace' scoping; it does not say whether the value is a bare filename, a relative path, or an ID, nor any format rules.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return media metadata') plus a scope ('inside the Videos workspace'), which implicitly separates it from the transformation siblings trim_video, extract_audio and burn_subtitles. It does not explicitly state that it is the read-only inspection step versus those tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the tool to call before trimming or extracting audio; nothing in the text says so.

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