Inspect Media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds that the probe goes out to the internet and lists example metadata fields (width, height, duration, rotation, framerate), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, failure modes for unreachable/private URLs, or the meaning of the {version} placeholder.

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 mechanism are front-loaded in the first sentence and the size is appropriate. The trailing base-URL block with a raw HTML anchor and a literal '{version}' placeholder adds noise without helping the agent invoke the tool.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and gives a representative list of returned fields, which is reasonably complete. The gaps are minor: no scope note that only public HTTPS URLs are supported beyond what the schema pattern implies, and no guidance on failure behavior.

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 (url, account) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no format or semantic detail beyond what is there. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description names a specific verb (Inspects) and resource (any media asset: image, video, audio), states the mechanism (hosted FFprobe), and no sibling tool does anything comparable — everything else is render/template/asset CRUD. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_asset or get_model.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. 'Read operation' hints at the usage profile but the agent is left to infer that this is the metadata-probing tool rather than a fetch/download tool.

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