get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Probe ... and return' implies a read-only operation, and the enumerated return fields partly substitute for the missing output schema. However, nothing is said about error behavior on unreadable/unsupported files, whether paths are local or remote, or whether the whole file is read (cost/latency).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the mechanism (ffprobe), followed by the exact return fields. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation inspection tool this is nearly sufficient: the return values are listed even without an output schema. The remaining gap is failure/cost behavior, which matters for an ffprobe call on arbitrary files.

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 100% — the single 'input' parameter is documented as 'Path to the media file to probe'. The description adds no additional constraint (path format, accessibility, URL support) beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Probe') on a specific resource ('a media file') and enumerates the concrete outputs (duration, resolution, frame rate, codecs, container, size). This clearly separates it from the transformation siblings (convert, trim, scale, extract_audio), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the inspection use case is strongly implied by 'probe' and by the return fields. An agent must infer that this is the pre-flight/read tool rather than a producer of new media.

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