get_video_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, openWorldHint true. The description adds context about the kind of data returned (technical metadata, processing status) without contradicting annotations. It could mention pagination or error behavior but is still strong.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and includes usage guidance efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, but strong annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's scope and differentiates it. It lists example metadata fields, providing a clear picture of output without needing full schema. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that the output is a JSON object, but the example fields compensate.

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%, with the file_id parameter detailed in the schema itself. The main description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves technical metadata about a Cloudglue video file, listing specific attributes (duration, resolution, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_video by specifying it is for technical specs rather than content analysis.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Use this when you need video specifications...') and contrasts it with content-focused tools, citing describe_video as an alternative.

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