Probe media

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it costs no image tokens, decodes nothing, never downloads, never calls an LLM, and requires a local absolute path. It also discloses the silent-recording gate (silent audio is never sent to ASR, preventing hallucinated transcripts), which is behavior an agent could not predict from the annotations.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, routing second, behavioral caveats last. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the parenthetical Chinese restatement of the purpose line is pure duplication and the routing list is somewhat verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: metadata fields, track list, ASR/OCR readiness, and the audio health check (average level, speech ratio, silence ratio). It also covers the operational constraints (local path only, no downloads, no LLM) that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents path, transcript enum, and transcriptFile. The description reinforces the local-absolute-path constraint and mentions the ASR judgment, but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail for the transcript/transcriptFile parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect/probe) and resource (local media file) and enumerates the concrete outputs it reports: duration, resolution, page count, codec, tracks, ASR/OCR availability. It also names each sibling routing target (media_overview, media_zoom, media_locate), so an agent can distinguish it from all of them without opening a schema.

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?

"Call this FIRST on any file you have not inspected yet" gives an unambiguous trigger condition, followed by explicit if/then routing to each sibling for video/audio, documents, specific moments, and 'where was X said' queries. Both when-to-use and which-alternative are stated, not inferred.

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