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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It does convey a read-only inspection via ffprobe, but it does not explicitly state that the file is unmodified, require specific permissions, or warn about failure modes. It is minimally transparent but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second clarifies the precondition. The wording is direct, efficiently front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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 the return value is already documented. With only one parameter and clear purpose, the description covers the key constraint (path root). It does not address branch conditions for failure or permission, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple read-only inspection tool.

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 describes 'path' as an absolute path to a local media file, but the description adds an important constraint: the path must be inside an allowed read root. This goes beyond the schema and adds meaningful semantic guidance for correct invocation.

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 action (inspect), resource (local media file), method (ffprobe), and output (normalised metadata). This plainly differentiates it from the sibling video_transcribe, which would perform transcription rather than metadata inspection.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over video_transcribe. The description mentions an execution constraint (absolute path, allowed read root) but does not address selection among alternatives or any prerequisite/context beyond that.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that processing is offline and that the tool writes timestamped JSON and Markdown files, which conveys privacy implications and side effects. It does not detail overwrite behavior or error cases, but the key operational behavior is covered.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and constraints are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful information.

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 description captures the essential context: local file input, whisper.cpp engine, offline processing, and durable outputs. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required here. Minor ambiguity around 'allowed output directory' is acceptable since the schema already notes the server does not create it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to because the input schema covers path, output_dir, and language semantics.

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 and resource: 'Transcribe the first audio stream of a local media file with whisper.cpp.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling video_probe, which implies probing metadata rather than producing transcripts.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need an offline transcription of a local media file written to timestamped output files. It does not explicitly say 'use video_probe instead for metadata' or list exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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