timps_media_librarian

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 explicitly states 'dry-run' for ffmpeg commands and that it 'suggests' a rename plan, implying non-destructive actions. This is transparent about the tool's behavior without needing annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It packs action, scope, and outputs efficiently, making every word earn its place.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and deliverables (plan, commands). It covers what users need to know for invocation, though it doesn't elaborate on the return format or edge cases, which is acceptable given simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single 'path' parameter already described as optional with default directories. The description adds no extra param details but the schema already documents it fully, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Scan' with explicit resources (Photos, Downloads, Desktop) and clearly states the outcomes: identifying media chaos types, suggesting rename plans, and generating ffmpeg commands. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like timps_file_organizer by focusing on media-specific issues.

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 when to use (scanning media directories) but does not explicitly say when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to similar tools, though the context is fairly clear.

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