video.inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'inspect' and 'FFprobe', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose lack of side effects, configuration behavior, dependencies, or potential errors. More behavioral context is needed.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core action and output.

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?

The tool appears simple and output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits the purpose of config_path, any usage caveats, and what 'normalized' implies, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to fully understand configuration and edge cases.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'input_path' is only vaguely implied by 'video', while 'config_path' is entirely unaddressed. The description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details but fails to do so.

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 a specific verb 'inspect', identifies the resource 'a video', specifies the method 'with FFprobe', and states the output 'normalized media metadata'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transcribe, caption, or render.

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 implies use for inspecting video metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving usage largely inferred from the purpose.

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