get_video_info

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 what information is retrieved but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it reads files safely (non-destructive), handles errors for invalid paths, requires specific permissions, has performance or rate limits, or returns structured data. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for safe and effective use.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('获取视频文件的详细信息') and lists key attributes. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context or behavioral notes, but it remains appropriately concise for its informational content.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what information is retrieved but not the return format, error handling, or operational behavior. For a tool that interacts with file systems, more context on safety, permissions, and output structure is needed to be fully actionable without relying on external assumptions.

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 'filePath' clearly documented as '视频文件路径' (video file path). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) or constraints (e.g., supported file types). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '视频文件的详细信息' (detailed information of video files), listing specific attributes like duration, resolution, frame rate, and encoding. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive metadata extraction rather than stream analysis, bitrate calculation, or report generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'analyze_streams' which might also provide some 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 'analyze_streams', 'calculate_bitrate', or 'generate_report'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as file accessibility or format support, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose, lacking explicit context or comparisons.

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