media_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists output fields but does not mention side effects (assumed none), authorization or access requirements, error conditions, or whether the tool is read-only. The description is too sparse for a user to understand potential impacts.

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 a single concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the action ('Reports') and the output fields. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on file selection without making it verbose.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, missing context includes how the file is specified (e.g., from current selection or path) and any dependencies. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly adequate but has a notable gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema trivially covers 100%. The description adds meaning by enumerating the returned fields, but it fails to explain how the input file is determined. Without parameters, the tool likely relies on application context, which is not addressed.

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 the tool reports specific metadata fields (duration_ms, width, height, etc.) for video/audio files. It distinguishes from sibling video manipulation tools like video_concat or video_trim. However, it does not clarify how the file is selected (e.g., current context, path), leaving a slight ambiguity.

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 implies usage when metadata of a media file is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, and there are no sibling metadata tools to differentiate from.

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