get_video_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the word '获取', but it does not state what specific information is returned, whether it can fail, or any side effects. The description is too thin to provide genuine transparency.

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 concise single sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the essential action, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what '基本信息' actually includes. It does not describe return values, supported paths, error behavior, or how this differs from analyze_video_content. An agent has only a vague idea of what will happen when invoking this 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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter videoPath has a direct description ('视频文件路径'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but since the schema already documents it fully, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取视频文件基本信息' clearly states a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('视频文件基本信息'), so an agent can tell this is a retrieval tool. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like extract_video_frames or generate_video_script, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from analyze_video_content.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer get_video_info over analyze_video_content, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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