probe_video

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 explicitly states 'Não altera nada', which directly communicates that the operation is non-destructive. It also specifies the data read (duration, resolution, fps, codecs, size), giving a transparent picture of what the tool does. The output schema exists to cover the exact return structure, so the description need not repeat those details.

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 compact and efficiently structured: a one-line summary of output fields, a clear usage directive, a non-destructive note, and a simple Args block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler. Important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only probing tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it reads, when to use it, that it changes nothing, and how the path argument is interpreted. The presence of an output schema means return values are already declared structurally. There are no significant missing pieces given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the tool has one required parameter with no schema-level description. The description compensates fully by documenting 'path: Caminho do vídeo, relativo ao workspace', which adds critical semantics about the path being workspace-relative. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete and adds meaning beyond the bare schema declaration.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Lê duração, resolução, fps, codecs e tamanho de um vídeo' — it enumerates exactly what the tool reads. This differentiates it from siblings like cut_video or concat_videos by focusing on metadata probing rather than manipulation. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool name is reinforced without being a tautology.

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 explicitly says to use the tool before cutting or concatenating to know the file, which gives clear contextual placement among the sibling operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the primary use case is well defined. This is a clear context with no exclusions, matching a score of 4 rather than 5.

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