video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a metadata retrieval operation, which implies it is non-destructive and read-only. However, it lacks details on error handling, file format support, or performance characteristics like speed or resource usage, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as error conditions or limitations, to fully guide the agent.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'input_path' is an 'Absolute path to the video file,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage, though it could note path validation or file existence requirements.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata about a video file'), listing concrete attributes like duration, resolution, codec, fps, and size. It effectively distinguishes this read-only metadata tool from sibling tools that perform video editing operations like crop, convert, or merge.

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 implies usage context by specifying it retrieves metadata, suggesting it should be used when information about a video file is needed rather than for editing tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, though the distinction is clear from the listed operations.

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