antigravity_inspect_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: ffprobe metadata extraction, optional model analysis, and status=partial when only metadata is available. However, it says nothing about file access permissions, supported formats, size limits, or failure modes for a tool that reads local files.

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 front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the optional model behavior and the partial-result condition. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the definition leaves both required parameters semantically undefined and gives no alternative-tool guidance, which is a meaningful gap for a two-parameter media inspection tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for both required parameters, but it does not explain file_path at all and never mentions focus_query. The agent gets no semantic guidance for how to supply either argument beyond generic names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read local video/audio/image metadata via ffprobe, with optional model analysis. This is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with call_antigravity_multimodal or other media-related tools.

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 explains the internal condition for model analysis and partial results, but gives no guidance on when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives such as call_antigravity_multimodal. There are no exclusions or selection criteria.

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