probe_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only inspection, but it omits any disclosure of error behavior for missing/unsupported files, whether the file is fetched or must be local, or latency/cost of probing.

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?

A single compact sentence with the returned fields front-loaded in parentheses. It wastes nothing, though it is so terse that it sacrifices some needed context.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully lists the metadata returned (duration, resolution, codec), partially compensating for the absent output schema. Missing usage/prerequisite detail keeps it from being fully 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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Filename to probe', 100% coverage), and the description adds no syntax, path-format, or identifier details beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 (Get/probe) and resource (metadata for a media file), and enumerates the concrete fields returned (duration, resolution, codec). It clearly differs from list_media/create_media, but it never explicitly names or contrasts any sibling tool, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the file must already exist or be a supported format), and no alternatives named. An agent must guess when probing is appropriate versus other media tools.

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