Inspect Media Streams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming ffprobe as the engine and clarifying that it works independently of Premiere, which tells the agent no host connection is required.

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, no filler, with the purpose and return payload front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates the metadata categories, giving the agent a preview of usefulness. Combined with the annotation-covered safety profile, nothing needed to call this one-parameter tool is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents media_path as an 'Existing local media file'. The description's mention of 'local media file' aligns with but does not extend beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect), resource (local media file), the underlying mechanism (ffprobe), and the exact metadata classes returned (container, stream, codec, time-base, channel, chapter). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like inspect_project_item_av_metadata or inspect_sequence_av_settings because it operates on a raw file rather than a Premiere-owned entity.

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 'local media file' and 'independent of Premiere' clearly frames when this tool applies: file-level inspection without a project or host app. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when NOT to use it versus sibling inspection tools.

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