inspect_media

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read-style inspection and that metadata fields are only present 'when locally available', which usefully warns about partial results; however, it says nothing about error behavior for missing/unreadable files, permission needs, or whether any probing is expensive/slow.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key resource and returned fields stated up front. The trailing 'when locally available' is slightly awkward but earns its place by flagging optional fields.

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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates the returned metadata fields, which compensates well for the absent output schema. Remaining gaps are error/edge-case behavior and the local-vs-remote distinction from sibling tools.

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 single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by establishing that the path refers to one local media file (not an asset ID or URL), but it adds no format hints, relative-vs-absolute expectations, or supported container notes.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) plus resource (one local media file) and enumerates the attributes returned: size, hash, container, codec, duration. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as transcribe_audio or get_asset, but the scope is clear enough to select the tool without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_asset for hosted assets vs. this tool for local files). The only implicit constraint is 'local', which an agent must infer from the wording rather than being told directly.

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