cutbolt_media_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it returns reasons rather than a truncated recipe when a source exceeds media.conform's 45000-output-frame cap, and it specifies that video-only conform recipes are produced, plus the requirement that the path live inside input_root.

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?

Purpose and scoping constraint are front-loaded, and the dense second sentence packs return values, downstream references, and the frame-cap exception without filler. It is slightly run-on, packing several distinct output facets into a single sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: content identity, stream metadata, timeline readiness with frame rate/frames/rational duration, or failure reasons plus a conform recipe. It is complete for the happy and non-conformable paths, though it says nothing about error behavior for missing or out-of-root paths.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the input_root containment constraint ('inside an explicit input_root') but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

Names a specific verb (probe) and resource (a local source file inside input_root) and enumerates exactly what it returns: content identity (relative path, SHA-256, bytes), stream metadata, and a timeline verdict. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like cutbolt_timeline_check or cutbolt_cache_inspect, leaving the boundary to be inferred from the return shape.

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 makes the trigger clear: use it to learn a file's identity and whether it is timeline-ready, and it points to the natural downstream steps (media.add for ready assets, job.start with a media.conform recipe for those that are not). It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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