video_read_metadata

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

The description correctly indicates a read operation with no destructive side effects. However, it lacks additional behavioral details such as error handling, support for various file formats, or output structure. With no annotations, the description could be more informative.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are partially handled, but the description does not specify what metadata tags are included or how they are structured. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The single parameter 'input_path' is described as 'Absolute path to the video or audio file', which adds clarity beyond the schema's bare type definition. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 'Read metadata tags from a video/audio file', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like video_info and video_info_detailed by focusing on tags, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as video_info or video_write_metadata. No when-not conditions or prerequisite information are provided.

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