probe_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed info') and local file access, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, errors, or limitations. The description is not misleading, but it could be more explicit about its read-only nature.

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, well-structured sentence with the key action and scope front-loaded. It wastes no words and conveys all essential information efficiently.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, scope, and basic return content. It could specify the return format (e.g., JSON) or error handling, but for a straightforward media probe, it is largely sufficient. The lack of an output schema is compensated by listing the returned fields.

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 already fully describes the single parameter 'file_path' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('local media file'), and the exact information returned (duration, resolution, codecs, bitrate). It also specifies the scope (video, audio, images), which differentiates it from the sibling 'image_info' tool that presumably only handles images. This is a precise, non-tautological statement.

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 implies its use case (inspecting media files) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like image_info or other analysis tools. It does not state when to prefer this over a sibling or provide exclusions. While the scope is clear, there is no explicit routing guidance.

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