ffmpeg_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return format (JSON string with metadata fields) but does not disclose side effects, if any, or behavior like whether it modifies the file. Basic but incomplete.

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 short and includes 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the labels are somewhat redundant given the schema, but overall efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented. The description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency leave gaps for a complete understanding.

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 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the property name by stating 'Path to the media file' for file_path. This barely improves understanding beyond the schema's field name and type.

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 'Get video/audio file metadata using ffprobe', specifying the tool's function and the underlying tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ffmpeg_compress or ffmpeg_convert, which handle manipulation tasks.

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 implicitly suggests use for metadata retrieval but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context hints are given.

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