export_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation but does not state whether it overwrites existing files, where the output file is written, what the return value is, or whether any side effects occur. The absence of such details is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of essential context, so it is not overly efficient in conveying necessary 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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not clarify the output file path, return value, or relationship to other media tools. The tool is simple but still requires more contextual detail to be considered complete.

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 schema has one required string parameter 'input' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's meaning. It is unclear whether 'input' is the source media file path, the output JSON path, or something else. This is a critical omission for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb ('Write') and resource ('ffprobe metadata') and specifies the output form ('local JSON file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like media_probe, which focuses on probing, and export_formats, which likely converts formats. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate or clarify what 'ffprobe metadata' refers to, leaving slight ambiguity about the source of the metadata.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to run a probe first with media_probe, or comparison to other export tools like export_gif or export_thumbnail_set. The description fails to route the agent to the appropriate context.

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