Video Info MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs '深度分析' (deep analysis) of streams, but doesn't describe what this entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific file permissions, potential performance impacts, or error handling. The description lacks details on behavioral traits beyond the basic function, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose: '分别解析视频流和音频流的详细参数，提供流级别的深度分析'. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly improved by adding brief usage context without sacrificing brevity.

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 context—2 parameters with full schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools present—the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose but lacks guidance on usage versus alternatives and behavioral details. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, more information on expected outputs or operational constraints would enhance completeness, but the current description meets a basic threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'filePath' (video file path) and 'includeMetadata' (whether to include metadata information). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: '分别解析视频流和音频流的详细参数，提供流级别的深度分析' (Parse video and audio stream parameters separately, provide stream-level deep analysis). It specifies the verb ('解析' - parse/analyze) and resource ('视频流和音频流' - video and audio streams), making the function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' or 'calculate_bitrate', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get_video_info' (which might provide general video information) or 'calculate_bitrate' (which might focus on bitrate calculations), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection.

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