resolve_verify_media

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the nature of checks ('bounded ffprobe checks') and possible SHA-256 computation, which enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's essence. Every word earns its place; there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity of the tool (many expectations parameters, output schema present), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what 'bounded ffprobe checks' entail, the return format, or how SHA-256 is computed, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the 'path' parameter or detail the 'expectations' object. While it mentions 'optional SHA-256,' it fails to add meaning for the required parameter, relying on the schema alone which has many nested properties.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify an allowlisted media delivery with bounded ffprobe checks and optional SHA-256.' It uses specific verbs ('Verify') and resources ('media delivery', 'ffprobe checks', 'SHA-256'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'resolve_import_media' or 'resolve_execute_destructive_action'.

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 for verifying media delivery but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'resolve_import_media' for ingestion) or when not to use it. It lacks context about prerequisites or conditions for invocation.

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