Media Info

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

Annotations carry the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: the FFprobe dependency, the bounded private stable snapshot, and the explicit statement that no provider upload occurs and no watched coverage is established. The 'snapshot' phrasing also explains why readOnlyHint is false for an inspect-style tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource list, then constraints. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the operation's scope, side-effect posture, and external dependency. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on selecting this over the near-name-collision siblings like media_metadata or media_source_inspect.

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?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (LOCAL_FILE_ACCESS_ROOT constraint, 1-4096 chars). The description reinforces 'local media bytes' but adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') plus a concrete resource set: local media bytes, stream metadata, rotation, audio, chapters. That distinguishes it from provider-oriented siblings such as media_metadata and media_source_inspect, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 clauses 'no provider upload' and 'does not establish watched coverage' implicitly scope it to local, non-ingesting inspection, which is useful routing signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative among the many media_* siblings.

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