probe_media

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful scoping constraint — the path is resolved relative to a configured media root — but says nothing about failure behavior for missing files, unsupported containers, or whether probing is expensive on large media.

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?

Two compact blocks: what is returned first, then the single argument. Every sentence earns its place; the only nit is the docstring-style 'Args:' formatting, which is slightly heavier than needed for one parameter.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the one required parameter is fully described. For a single-param read tool with annotations, the only meaningful omission is error/edge-case behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it defines the path as relative to the configured media root and gives a concrete example ("sample_1080p.mp4") that pins down the expected format. It does not say whether absolute paths or traversal outside the root are rejected, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the concrete resource (a media file) and enumerates exactly what it reports: codec, resolution, fps, duration, bitrate, audio. This is instantly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all job/runbook oriented, so there is no ambiguity about what this returns.

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 by the field list — you call it when you need technical metadata for a file — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. No sibling is similar enough to require routing guidance, so the gap is mild rather than damaging.

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