media_probe

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description's 'Return a concise summary' aligns with that. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of potential costs, file-size implications, or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations, so a neutral score is warranted.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly communicates the core action and scope, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is largely sufficient. It explains the basic behavior and the output schema presumably details the return structure. A minor gap is the lack of clarity on what 'key streams' specifically includes, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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%, with the single parameter file_path described as 'Absolute path to a video/audio file.' The description's 'media file' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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's function: returning a concise summary of a media file, specifying 'container + key streams'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from more general actions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like media_streams which might also return stream details.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_streams or media_extract_frame. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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