Probe asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (inspection and return of specific metadata fields) and input handling, but it does not explicitly state read-only status, side effects, or error conditions. The term 'Inspect' implies non-mutation, but the lack of an explicit safety guarantee keeps it from a higher score.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return values. Every word earns its place: no fluff, no repetition. The structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, input format, and expected output. It does not mention error handling or supported file types, but these are not critical for a basic inspection tool and would be better suited for a more complex 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 provides only a bare string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates well by explaining that the parameter accepts an asset id or an absolute path, giving the agent the necessary format context. It could further elaborate on constraints (e.g., file type), but for a single parameter this is solid.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource (media file), then enumerates the exact return fields (duration, dimensions, codecs, streams). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_video or import_asset, which create or import rather than inspect.

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: it is for inspecting an existing media file and supports two input forms (asset id or absolute path). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb 'Inspect' and the focus on metadata make the use case unambiguous.

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