Get video info

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 clearly states the operation is 'Read metadata' and lists the exact outputs, making the non-mutating nature evident. It doesn't elaborate on error handling or return format, but for a read-only inspection tool, this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and enumerate the output fields, followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies the output fields, clarifies the input type, and provides operational context ('use first'). No critical information is missing for an agent to select and use this tool 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?

The single parameter input_path is already fully documented in the schema with 'Path to the video or audio file' (100% coverage). The description reiterates that it accepts video or audio files but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 reads metadata from a video or audio file and enumerates the specific fields returned (duration, resolution, frame rate, codecs, bitrate, file size). This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling editing tools like trim_video or convert_video.

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 first to understand a file before editing it,' providing clear contextual guidance for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but since there are no sibling tools that retrieve metadata, this is acceptable.

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