media_probe

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. Mentioning ffprobe hints at a read-only inspection, but the description does not disclose whether the file is modified, what output format is returned, or how errors/failures behave.

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, direct sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and target are front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent knows to pass media_id but cannot predict what the tool returns, whether it is safe/read-only, or how it relates to the broader media workflow. More context is needed for confident selection and invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter, media_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'a media file' adds some context that media_id refers to the file being probed, and the name media_id plus uuid format is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not explain how to obtain a valid media_id.

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 specific action, 'Probe', and a resource, 'a media file', and names ffprobe, a well-known metadata inspection utility. This distinguishes it from siblings like media_import or media_list, though it stops short of explicitly saying it returns format/stream 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, what prerequisites exist, or where media_id comes from. The verb 'probe' implicitly suggests inspecting an already imported file, but no explicit usage context is given.

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