probe

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Inspect" implies a non-mutating read and the named backend (ffprobe) implies the tool shells out to an external binary, but the description does not state that the source file is untouched, how failures on invalid/missing paths surface, or what the response looks like. It is adequate for a trivial one-argument reader but not richly transparent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, verb first, with the returned fields enumerated at the end. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be moved earlier.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient because it enumerates the return fields (duration, dimensions, codecs, streams), standing in for the missing output schema. Only the error behavior on unreadable files is left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Path to the file (relative or absolute)"), so the schema already does all the work. The description adds no constraint, format, or example beyond that, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 a specific verb ("Inspect"), a specific resource (a media file), the underlying implementation (ffprobe), and the exact attributes returned (duration, dimensions, codecs, streams). An agent can immediately tell this is the read-only metadata tool among a sibling set that otherwise performs transformations (convert, trim, crop, concat). It stops short of a 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the returned fields strongly suggest probing before convert/trim/resize so the agent knows duration and dimensions to work with. There is no explicit "use this before X" statement, no guidance on when a different sibling is appropriate, and no note about handling files that ffprobe cannot read.

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