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 mentions calculating average and peak bitrates with detailed analysis, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs analysis. It doesn't explain what 'detailed bitrate analysis' includes, such as output format, units, or additional metrics. For a tool with 2 parameters and potential complexity in bitrate calculations, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'sampleDuration') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'sampleDuration' affects peak bitrate calculation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: '计算视频的平均码率和峰值码率' (calculate average and peak bitrate of videos) and '提供详细的码率分析' (provide detailed bitrate analysis). It specifies the verb (calculate) and resource (video bitrate), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_streams' or 'get_video_info' which might have 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 like 'analyze_streams' or 'get_video_info', nor does it specify contexts or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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