Media List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only what data is returned (plan, remaining exports, API limits), which is mildly useful context but no behavioral traits beyond that.

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 short sentence fragment with no filler, so it is appropriately sized. It is not front-loaded with a verb, which slightly weakens its structure, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does name the three content areas. It is adequate for a zero-param read tool but does not describe the shape or structure of the returned account/limits data.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a singleton account lookup.

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 the resource (the user's account) and the data it surfaces (plan, remaining exports, API limits), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign and get_contact. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never explicitly states that the tool retrieves/reads this data, leaving purpose merely implied.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus the other get_* or list_* siblings, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the account-level lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered elsewhere. The description's one contribution is signaling the return shape ('status and counts'), which is modest added value, but it says nothing about behavior for a missing or invalid id.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler — nothing to cut. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 tool with full annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the returned content so the agent knows what comes back. It omits any note about failure modes or how it relates to list_campaigns, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required integer id already documented as 'Campaign id from list_campaigns.' The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline applies.

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 the resource ('one campaign') and hints at payload ('status and counts'), which distinguishes it from list_campaigns as a single-item fetch. However, it never states a verb and never names list_campaigns or any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only routing hint ('Campaign id from list_campaigns') lives in the schema property description, not in the tool description itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response is a 'full profile' (versus the abbreviated records a search returns), with no detail on lookup failure behavior or data freshness.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the id provenance appended as a compact parenthetical. No filler.

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 trivial single-record getter with a 100%-documented one-param schema and rich annotations, this covers what an agent needs to select and call it. A brief note on what happens for an unknown id would make it fully complete, but no output schema is needed here.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description modestly enriches it by naming where valid ids originate (search_contacts or a list), but adds no constraints or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Full profile for one contact by id') and scopes it to a single record, which differentiates it from search_contacts. It stops short of fully positioning itself against the other get_* siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the parenthetical '(from search_contacts or a list)' tells the agent where the id comes from, which effectively routes it after a search/list call. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives beyond that provenance hint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that values come with counts and cover media type, topic and other filters — useful return-content context — but says nothing about caching, auth, or how exhaustive the value list is.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return payload, no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the return value, and it does (valid values plus counts, scoped to search_contacts filters). The vague 'and other filters' leaves the exact set of filter dimensions unknown, which is the only real gap for a zero-param read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input is required.

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 the resource precisely — valid filter values with counts — and anchors it to the sibling search_contacts, so an agent can tell it apart from get_contact/list_lists. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'lists'), but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what is produced.

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?

Referencing 'filters used by search_contacts' implies this is a discovery step preceding a search, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. before constructing a search query, or only when filter values are unknown) nor what to do with the counts. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the response bundles the list's contacts, but says nothing about how those contacts are paged or how large a list can be.

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?

Six words with zero padding, which is refreshingly terse, but the fragment is too thin to front-load any actionable information beyond the return content. Under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 read tool with paging parameters and no output schema, the description should at least tell the agent that contacts come back paginated. Those two undocumented parameters and the missing pagination behavior leave a meaningful gap.

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 only 33%: 'id' is documented (pointing at list_lists) but 'page' and 'per_page' carry no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the two unexplained pagination parameters (per_page max 50).

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 fragment "One saved list and its contacts" tells the agent it retrieves a single list plus associated contacts, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_lists (plural). However, it is a noun phrase rather than a stated verb+resource, and it never explicitly says it fetches by id.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_lists (enumerate all lists), search_contacts, or get_contact. The only routing hint is indirect, via the schema's 'List id from list_lists.' reference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is declaring the returned metrics: send, open, and click counts. With no output schema present, that return-content disclosure is genuinely useful; it stops just short of describing pagination or result limits.

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 sentence with no filler, leading with the resource scope and then the payload. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 no-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what comes back (counts). The only gap is the absence of any scope caveat such as result limits or default ordering, which would matter since there is no output schema and no parameters to control them.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is needed, and the schema has nothing to document.

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+resource ('email campaigns') and scopes it to the user's own campaigns, which separates it from the get_campaign sibling. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_lists or get_campaign, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the zero-argument 'list' shape makes it fairly obvious when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no alternative named, and no statement of what it does not return (e.g., individual campaign details, which would route to get_campaign).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a small amount of value by naming the returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results.

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?

It is a single short clause with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. The trade-off is that terseness comes at the cost of an explicit verb, leaving it slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and returned fields, which is the minimum an agent needs. However, it does not state that it returns all saved lists or how results are scoped/ordered, leaving a gap that the absent output schema does not fill.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description has no parameters to clarify and correctly does not invent any.

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 the resource ('the user's saved Media List lists') and the attributes returned (name, size, dates), but it is a sentence fragment with no explicit verb. The 'list' intent is only inferable from the tool name, so it stops short of a clear verb+resource statement that separates it cleanly from sibling get_list.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the closely related get_list (singular) or list_campaigns. No prerequisites, filters, or exclusions are stated; the agent must infer that this is the 'enumerate all' variant.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the returned field set and the fact that email status is masked unless already unlocked. It does not mention pagination limits or result caps, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it finds, how to drive it, and what comes back. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 12-parameter, no-required-params search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query construction, returned fields and the email-masking caveat. It omits pagination guidance and the dependency on get_filter_values for enumerable media/topic values, which are the remaining gaps.

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% and every one of the 12 parameters is documented in the schema, including examples and page/per_page ranges. The description only gestures at the keyword-plus-filter pattern without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (journalists, editors, producers, podcast hosts, creators), plus what the operation combines (keywords with filters). It is clearly distinct in substance from siblings like search_outlets and get_contact, but it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Combine free-text keywords with filters" implies the intended usage mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. get_filter_values for valid media/topic values, or search_outlets for outlet-centric queries). Usage must be inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include contact counts, which is useful, but it omits pagination behavior, result ordering, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 no filler. It states the action, the resources, the search keys, and the returned count efficiently.

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 low-complexity read search, the description covers the core purpose and return content (contact counts), and annotations carry the safety profile. However, without an output schema, it leaves pagination behavior and match semantics (substring vs. exact) undescribed, creating minor but real gaps.

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 only 33%; only 'query' carries a schema description, and the tool description repeats 'name or domain' without adding syntax or examples. The 'page' and 'per_page' parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Find'), enumerates the exact resource types (newspapers, magazines, TV/radio stations, sites, podcasts), and names the search keys (name or domain). It is clearly distinguishable from search_contacts and the get_* siblings.

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 search keys imply use for outlet lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_contacts or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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