get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), it doesn't clarify whether this requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured or raw data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, with the single parameter 'item_key' fully documented in the schema as 'The item key (ratingKey) to get media information for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed technical information about media files'), including examples of the information returned (codecs, bitrates, file sizes). It distinguishes from most sibling tools that focus on browsing, searching, or managing content rather than extracting technical metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar technical analysis tools that might exist in other contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first), when this tool is appropriate versus other metadata tools, or any constraints on usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit context.

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