ffmpeg__healthz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (JSON with version and health status) and the check nature, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not explicitly state side effects, but none are expected for a health check.

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 three short, well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds remarks and parameter details without redundant text or 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?

For a simple health check with no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return content. It could be more complete by specifying exact health status values or behavior when ffmpeg is unavailable, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major 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?

The only parameter is fully described by the schema via enum and default. The @param line merely restates this information without adding meaning, such as when to use structuredContent versus content or how the response differs. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fails to compensate with deeper 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('ffmpeg runtime dependency availability'). It also mentions it returns version and health status, which distinguishes it from sibling healthz tools like shell__healthz and ass__healthz via the ffmpeg prefix.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for verifying ffmpeg availability, presumably before ffmpeg operations. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative healthz tools for other runtimes.

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