What's in a media file

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does not say whether the call is read-only, what happens on unsupported codecs or corrupt files, whether remote URLs are accepted, or how large files are handled. It does usefully pre-declare the returned fields, which is some behavioral value beyond the name.

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?

One tight sentence with the most useful information (the returned fields) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but omits the action verb, which slightly reduces usability per word.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does compensate by enumerating the returned metadata fields. However, it leaves the required parameter undocumented and says nothing about error conditions or path conventions, which are the main remaining gaps for a one-parameter inspection 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter input_path is never mentioned, so the agent gets no statement of whether it must be a project-relative path, absolute path, or asset ID. The phrase 'inside the project' weakly implies path scoping but does not document 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 names the resource (an image or video in the project) and the exact outputs (duration, size, frame rate, codecs), so an agent can infer this is a read-only metadata probe. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as media_cleanup, media_optimize or background_remove, and it is phrased as a noun list rather than a verb, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus media_optimize, media_cleanup or video_edit, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implicit cue is 'inside the project', which narrows scope but does not guide selection.

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