popcorn_suggest

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

The description discloses that it returns 'video metadata, suggested video type, and recommended presets' and implies read-only behavior via the verb 'probe'. With no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that the file is never modified, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects.

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 compact sentences, placing the core action in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It also connects to the sibling tool for the next step, making it sufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents the sole 'path' parameter with a description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds only minimal context by calling it a 'video file', which doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'probe' with the resource 'a video file' and explicitly names the output ('suggested analysis settings'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool popcorn_analyze by stating 'before running popcorn_analyze', making its purpose clear.

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' and 'before running popcorn_analyze', which provides clear temporal guidance. However, it does not mention scenarios where the tool should not be used or alternative tools for different situations beyond the implied next step.

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