probe_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Probe' strongly implies a read-only inspection and the returned fields are listed, but it does not explicitly state side effects, ffmpeg dependency, permission needs, or failure behavior.

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 efficiently names the action, scope, and returned metadata.

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 probe tool, the description usefully lists the fields returned and there is no output schema. However, it omits the meaning of ffmpeg_dir and any error or dependency behavior, leaving an agent with gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'One media file' loosely implies the 'path' parameter, but 'ffmpeg_dir' is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Probe') and resource ('one media file'), and enumerates the metadata returned: bytes, dimensions, fps, duration, codec. It is distinguishable from the conversion-oriented sibling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus convert_media or other siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that it inspects a single media file's metadata.

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