probe

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 states the tool inspects media properties but doesn't disclose whether it reads from a file path, URL, or uploaded content; whether it requires ffprobe/ffmpeg; or what happens on unsupported formats. The 'input' parameter is ambiguous. For a read-only inspection tool, the description should clarify what input means and what the output looks like.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key properties. No wasted words. It could be slightly more explicit about the input type, but it is concise and readable.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'input' refers to, what the return format is, or what errors might occur. For a tool with a single parameter, the description should at least define the input format.

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. It lists the properties being inspected (duration, tracks, codecs, resolution, frame rate) but doesn't explain what 'input' should be (file path? URL? media ID?). The single parameter is required but its semantics are under-specified.

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 ('Inspect') and names the resource (media properties: duration, tracks, codecs, resolution, frame rate). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like trim, overlay, concat, transform, audio_mix, render, which are all mutation/creation operations. However, it doesn't explicitly name the tool's domain (e.g., media file) beyond the listed properties, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description implies this is an inspection/read-only tool, contrasting with the mutation-oriented siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but the verb 'Inspect' and the property list make the use case reasonably clear. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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