video_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get metadata', which is adequate but does not explicitly mention safety, error conditions (e.g., missing file), or permissions. Sufficient for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the purpose and a bullet for the argument. Every word adds value, and the most important information (what it returns) is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 description covers core functionality and parameter semantics, but misses edge cases (file not found, unsupported formats) and does not differentiate from video_info_detailed. An output schema is present, so return values need less explanation, but usage guidance is lacking.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds critical meaning by specifying 'input_path' should be an absolute path and listing the returned metadata fields. This compensates for the bare schema, providing clear semantics for the single parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata from a video file, listing specific fields (duration, resolution, codec, fps, size). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like video_info_detailed.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., video_info_detailed). No context is given for appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or situations to avoid using this tool.

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