video_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral load: it implies a read-only probe and discloses the response envelope {success, info:{duration, resolution, codec, fps, size}}, which is useful. It says nothing about failure behavior (missing/corrupt file), whether it transcodes or touches the file, or why a probe accepts an 'overwrite' flag.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then usage, then the argument — an efficient ordering with no filler. The trailing 'Args: input_path' line partially repeats what the body already says and could be folded in.

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 the description needn't expand on return values, and it still gives a useful summary of the shape. For a two-parameter read-only probe it covers purpose, prerequisite (existing file, absolute path), and call timing — nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 50% and the undocumented parameter is input_path — the description compensates by specifying it must be an absolute path to an existing video, adding real meaning beyond the bare string type. The documented 'overwrite' parameter is left unexplained in prose, which is a minor gap since a probe arguably shouldn't need it.

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+resource ('Probe a video file for metadata') and sketches the return payload, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-name siblings like video_read_metadata and video_info_detailed, leaving the agent to guess which probe to pick.

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?

'Use before any edit to learn the source's dimensions and length' gives a concrete trigger condition and a position in the workflow. It offers no exclusions or mention of the alternative metadata tools (video_read_metadata, video_info_detailed), so the routing is clear in the forward direction only.

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