analyze_media

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

The description explains behavior for single files and folders, including the sorted table output. However, it lacks details on supported media formats, error handling, and side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; more detail on limitations or prerequisites would improve transparency.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, detailing behavior for single/folder, and suggesting use cases. No extraneous information.

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 covers single and folder scenarios, use cases, and mentions FFprobe. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool. Missing details like supported formats or accuracy of time estimates are minor gaps.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and sort_by) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the path being an absolute Windows path and the sort_by default, but this adds only marginal value 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 clearly states the tool analyzes media files using FFprobe before transcribing, returning specific metadata like duration, size, codec, and estimated transcription times. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., transcribe_audio, check_progress) by focusing on pre-transcription 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 'Use this to plan batch work, estimate how long transcription will take, or check what's already been transcribed,' providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context implies it is for planning, not actual transcription.

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