run_ffprobe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'fixed' implying a predetermined command and 'allowed' implying validation, but does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or what the output contains beyond the existence of an output schema. Minimal behavioral context is offered.

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 redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and does not waste space. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, which slightly reduces the score.

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?

Despite the tool having only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what ffprobe does (media metadata extraction), what the output looks like (even if schema covers structure, the semantics of 'metadata' are unclear), or what 'allowed' means in practice. The tool is under-specified for effective agent use.

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 only one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description adds only the qualifier 'allowed input path', which hints at restrictions but doesn't specify how to determine validity or what format the path should take. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('ffprobe metadata command') on a path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_file_metadata by naming the specific tool (ffprobe), but doesn't explicitly state that ffprobe extracts media metadata, leaving some ambiguity about the exact purpose.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_metadata or read_binary_slice. The phrase 'allowed input path' implies restrictions, but there is no explanation of what constitutes an allowed path or when this tool is preferred over others.

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