inspect_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data and the description need not repeat it. The description adds the concrete metadata fields extracted, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about handling of unsupported or corrupt files, and the presence of an output schema means return shape needs no explanation here.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and extracted fields up front and no filler words. It is efficient, though the metadata field list is packed into one clause without further structure.

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 read-only single-parameter inspection tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap, support for various container or codec formats and the local-file constraint, is minor at this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter media_path, so the description must compensate and only partially does: "workstation file" implies a local filesystem path rather than a URL, job ID or artifact reference. It adds no information about path format, accepted extensions or codec support.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a precise resource and enumerates the exact fields returned: codec, frame rate, dimensions and duration. That clearly separates it from siblings such as normalize_media, upload_media or detect_faces, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "from a workstation file" implicitly scopes usage to local files on the machine, which hints at when the tool applies versus remote or artifact-oriented siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over normalize_media, detect_faces or view_artifact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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