probe_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but never states that it is non-destructive and requires no Final Cut session, nor does it say how it behaves on unsupported codecs, missing files, or remote URLs. The listed fields are the only behavioral hint.

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 fragment, front-loaded and free of waste, but it is undersized for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, leaving obvious questions unanswered rather than resolving them compactly.

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?

A read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation relies entirely on the description. It enumerates some return fields but omits path semantics, error behavior, and whether output is structured JSON, so it is not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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% and the single required parameter `path` is never explained. The agent cannot tell from either source whether it accepts a filesystem path, file:// URL, or media reference, which is essential for this tool.

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 names the resource (media file) and the concrete facts returned (duration, resolution, frame rate, audio, timecode), so an agent can tell this is a metadata-inspection tool. It is not a full verb+resource statement, but among the siblings no other tool probes media metadata, so confusion risk is low.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no note that it is read-only inspection before editing, and no guidance on path form (local file, URL, project-relative). The agent must infer everything about usage.

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