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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention pagination despite a limit parameter defaulting to 20, and does not describe ordering or what a result contains.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource front-loaded and the filtering capability immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but omits the return shape, ordering, and pagination behavior. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what comes back or how to page through results.

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%, with each of the four parameters described inline including enum values, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the type and status filters but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, and ignores limit and workspaceId.

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 ('List media objects') scoped to a workspace, which is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like list_assets, get_media, or search_workspace, so an agent must infer which lister applies.

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 mention of filterable fields hints at how to narrow results, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_assets or get_media. The agent is left to guess which listing tool fits a given request.

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