probe_media

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the inspection nature and tools used, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the file), required permissions, or what 'three-point decoding' entails. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Front-loading is adequate but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not mention return values (though output schema may cover this), prerequisites, or the meaning of the decode check option. The lack of context makes it insufficient for confident 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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description does not explain any parameter beyond implicit reference to 'optional three-point decoding' (possibly relating to decode_check). It adds no meaningful context about path, decode_check, or require_audio beyond the schema.

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 it inspects a local media file using specific tools (FFprobe, SHA-256) and optional decode check, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings but the sibling tools (Douyin-related) are in a different domain, so purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does without context on use cases or exclusions.

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