probe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does the most important part by naming the returned fields (which substitutes for the missing output schema), and 'Inspect' implies a non-destructive read, but it never explicitly states the file is unmodified, nor how it behaves on unsupported/corrupt containers or missing files.

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 a colon-delimited field list — no filler, and the highest-value information (what it inspects and what it returns) arrives immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and compensates for the missing output schema by listing return fields. Minor gaps remain around error/unsupported-format behavior, but nothing an agent strictly needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Absolute or relative path to a local media file'). The description adds nothing about path semantics (remote URLs, symlinks, tilde expansion), so 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?

Names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (a local media file) and then enumerates exactly what it yields: container, duration, size, per-stream codec/resolution/fps/audio. That enumeration makes it unmistakable as the metadata-read tool among mutating siblings like trim, cut, concat, or transcode.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the read-only first step before trim/cut/render, but the description never says when to reach for probe versus a sibling, nor any when-not-to-use condition or prerequisite (file must exist, container must be supported).

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