doctor

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 that the tool reports locations and versions (a read-only diagnostic), but it does not state failure behavior (e.g., what happens if ffmpeg is missing) or whether the output is human-readable versus structured. For a simple diagnostic this is adequate but not complete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the tool's purpose and output scope.

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?

For a simple diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic summary but omits parameter behavior and return format details. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent about how to call it correctly.

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 optional parameter 'ffmpeg_dir' is not mentioned at all in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no meaning or expected format for this parameter, so an agent cannot tell whether it should supply a custom directory or leave it null.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('where the ffmpeg/ffprobe/ffplay trio was found + version'), making the diagnostic intent clear. It distinguishes itself from media-processing siblings like probe_media or convert_media by focusing on installation discovery rather than media operations.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, or what conditions warrant it (e.g., checking ffmpeg availability before conversion). The usage is only implied by the diagnostic purpose, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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