Media Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it performs no download, inference, or upload, telling the agent this is a lightweight operation. It stops short of describing error behavior or metadata coverage, so not a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the operation is stated first and the cost-avoidance qualifier second.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. But 'explicit metadata' leaves the actual payload ambiguous, and with multiple overlapping siblings (video_metadata, media_info, media_source_inspect) the definition should clarify what this returns and when to prefer it.

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 100% with a single, well-documented 'source' parameter (local path, YouTube/Loom URL, or HTTPS/HLS URL). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (retrieve metadata) but 'explicit metadata' is vague about what metadata is returned, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like video_metadata, media_info, or media_source_inspect. An agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this over video_metadata.

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 phrase 'without downloading video, inference or upload' implies the use case (cheap metadata lookup that avoids heavy processing), which is a real contextual hint. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to the many metadata-adjacent siblings.

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