iamf_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool parses OBUs and returns specific structural details, that it does not judge conformance, and notes MP4-specific behavior (edts/elst presence). This is transparent for an inspection tool, though it does not explicitly mention error behavior or non-mutating nature.

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 well-structured and concise: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists return details, and the third provides alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place without fluff or 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?

Given the tool has one input parameter and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. It even includes format-specific details (MP4 edts/elst), making it complete for its simple scope.

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 has a single 'path' parameter with no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by indicating the path points to an IAMF file ('an IAMF file's structure'). The implication is clear, though the description could have explicitly stated 'path to the IAMF file' for even greater precision.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Summarize an IAMF file's structure.' It explicitly differentiates from the sibling iamf_validate by saying 'without judging conformance' and 'this tool is for orientation,' making its purpose unambiguous.

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 directs users to 'Use iamf_validate for conformance findings; this tool is for orientation,' providing a clear when-to-use versus alternative-guidelines. It also establishes the boundary by stating it does not judge conformance.

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