Media info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value only by disclosing what the response contains (the enumerated metadata fields), which matters because there is no output schema; it says nothing about whether the file must be opened first, behavior on non-media input, or cost of large files.

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?

A single economical sentence with the key content front-loaded and no filler. It is a fragment without a verb, which slightly weakens the lead but wastes no words.

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 read-only tool this is close to adequate: the field list compensates for the missing output schema. It still leaves gaps around prerequisites (must the file be opened via open_files first) and error behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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% and the single path parameter is documented in the schema as an absolute path of a user-supplied file. The description's phrase 'of a media file' adds only mild constraint beyond what the schema already states, 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 names the resource and enumerates the specific data it surfaces (duration, container, codecs, resolution, fps, audio channels, languages, chapters), so an agent knows it is a metadata inspection tool. It lacks an explicit verb ('get'/'inspect') and does not distinguish itself from siblings like audio_levels or keyframes, which also probe media file properties.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. The agent must infer from the field list alone whether this is the right tool versus audio_levels, detect_scenes, or contact_sheet for understanding a media file.

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