Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('via ffprobe') but lacks details on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid paths), rate limits, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get width, height, and duration') and method ('via ffprobe'), with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration context, which could help an agent use it more effectively despite the simplicity.

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 single parameter 'video_path' documented as 'Absolute path to the video file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format requirements or examples, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced 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 specific action ('Get') and the exact resources returned ('width, height, and duration of a video file'), using the technical method 'via ffprobe'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_frames' or 'get_clips_by_category' by focusing on metadata extraction rather than content retrieval or filtering.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for obtaining video metadata, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), exclusions (e.g., unsupported formats), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'analyze_video_clip', leaving the agent to infer context.

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