health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The verb 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the content (versions, encoders, free space) suggests no side effects, but the description does not explicitly guarantee non-destructiveness or mention potential errors (e.g., missing ffmpeg) or latency. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 zero redundancy. Every word earns its place: 'Report' conveys the action, and the three items (versions, encoders, free space) are listed compactly. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines the three pieces of information returned, which is reasonably complete. However, it does not specify the format (e.g., plain text, JSON), units for free space, or platform-specific behavior, which an agent might need to parse the result reliably. Slightly above minimal but with noticeable gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered and there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. No information is missing here.

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 verb 'Report' and lists concrete resources: ffmpeg/ffprobe versions, encoders, and workspace free space. It clearly distinguishes this health-check tool from the video-processing siblings (probe, trim, overlay, etc.), which are all operations on media. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that it is a pre-flight check before media operations, but the description never states this, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., ffmpeg installed) or what to do with the reported information. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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