Video Info MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool outputs reports in multiple formats but doesn't describe what the report contains, whether it performs analysis on the video file, if it requires specific file types, or what happens on errors. For a tool that presumably reads and processes video files, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two clear clauses in a single sentence. The first clause states the core purpose, the second adds important functionality about output formats. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the format support into its own sentence.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '视频技术参数' (video technical parameters) includes, what the output looks like for different formats, or any behavioral aspects like file access requirements or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters: 'filePath' (视频文件路径 - video file path) and 'format' (报告格式 - report format) with enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: '输出标准化的视频技术参数报告' (output standardized video technical parameter reports) and '支持多种格式输出' (supports multiple output formats). It specifies the verb ('输出' - output) and resource ('报告' - report) with the scope of video technical parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' which might provide similar information.

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 like 'get_video_info' or 'analyze_streams'. It mentions support for multiple output formats but doesn't specify scenarios where one format would be preferred over others, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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