get_video_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates read-only behavior via 'Get' and lists the expected return fields, but it does not mention error cases, supported file formats, access requirements, or what happens for invalid input. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean bulleted list for return values. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it states the purpose and the returned fields. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent deciding how and when to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, yet the description gives no additional meaning for 'input_path' beyond what the schema already shows. The name is somewhat self-explanatory as the location of the video, but no format, path type, or validation details are provided to compensate 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 the tool retrieves basic information about a video and enumerates the returned fields: duration, width, height, fps. This is a distinct read-only operation compared to the many sibling tools that create, transform, or edit videos.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any preconditions or context mentioned. An agent must infer that this is the inspection step before other operations; no explicit usage context is provided.

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