video_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('extract metadata') but does not disclose potential side effects, file size limits, or permission requirements. The format constraint (AVI) is clear.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and output categories without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description lists essential metadata categories (dimensions, FPS, codec, stream info, duration, file-level properties) which gives a good sense of the return value, especially since no output schema exists. Missing details on edge cases but adequate for typical 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?

Only one parameter 'file_path' exists, and both the schema and description describe it as 'Path to AVI video file'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 extracts metadata from AVI video files and lists specific outputs (dimensions, FPS, codec, stream info, duration, file-level properties). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like frame extraction or detection.

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 use when metadata from an AVI file is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., video_detect, video_frame_extract). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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