List images from the account's media library, including brandkits, uploaded media, logos, and theme backgrounds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max images to return (default 100, max 500). | |
| search | No | Optional search term to filter images by name/URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds scope details (includes brandkits, uploaded media, etc.), but doesn't disclose further behaviors like response format or pagination.
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?
Single sentence, directly to the point, no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and content scope.
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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the resource and scope adequately. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the response could be helpful, but the function's purpose is clear.
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?
Input schema descriptions cover both 'limit' and 'search' fully (100% coverage). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information 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 it lists images from the account's media library and enumerates content types (brandkits, uploaded media, logos, theme backgrounds). This is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle surveys, responses, and webhooks.
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 clear context that this tool retrieves media library images, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over sibling list tools. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: surveys, responses, webhooks, analytics, and media library. Verbs like create, get, update, delete, list, and submit are applied clearly. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_survey, list_responses, update_webhook). Naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
15 tools is well-scoped for a survey platform, covering surveys, responses, webhooks, analytics, and media. Each tool serves a unique purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range, not feeling bloated or thin.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for surveys and webhooks, response submission and retrieval, analytics, and media listing. Minor gaps exist (no media upload, no response delete), but core workflows are complete and agents can achieve common tasks without dead ends.
