get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Inspect' clearly signals a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the property list sets expectations for the return content. It does not discuss failure modes or unsupported formats, but the essential safety profile is communicated.

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 a single compact sentence with a clear verb and a comma-separated list of returned properties. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the 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 simple tool (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys function and return value expectations. Minor gaps include lack of output format details and handling of unsupported file types, but these are not critical for an inspection tool.

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 has 100% schema description coverage, including path resolution semantics. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Inspect' as a specific verb, identifies the resource as 'a video or audio file', and enumerates the exact metadata returned (duration, resolution, codecs, fps, bitrate, file size). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all media 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?

The description implies use when you need media metadata rather than modification, and the sibling tool names make the alternative operations obvious. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when...' or name specific exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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