Get video info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey the safety and read-only nature. It opens with 'Read metadata,' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state that the file is not modified, nor does it mention potential errors, permissions, or file type limitations. The listed return fields add some transparency about output, but it is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: the first enumerates the exact metadata fields returned, and the second provides a clear usage directive. Every word contributes value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 function is a simple metadata read with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists all key return values and places the tool in the broader workflow ('Use this first...'). The rich sibling context (16 editing tools) makes its role as a pre-edit inspection tool obvious, and nothing important is missing.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'input_path' is 100%, with a clear description in the schema. The description adds the context that the path can point to video or audio files and that metadata will be read, but it does not add format, path-format, or validation details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for 100% 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('metadata from a video or audio file'), and lists concrete output fields (duration, resolution, frame rate, codecs, bitrate, file size). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are editing or transformation operations.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this first to understand a file before editing it,' which provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, though sibling names are all editing tools, making the intent clear.

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