medias_fetch_media_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting implications, or that it returns a list without filters). It doesn't contradict annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them with any additional behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, succinct sentence that states the core action. It is not verbose and is front-loaded with the verb. However, it is arguably too minimal to be fully helpful, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4 since every word contributes to the purpose.

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 10 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking in context. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what values are expected (e.g., 'type' likely expects 'file' or 'folder'), how to construct a valid request, or what the response looks like. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional information.

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it does not clarify expected values, relationships, or defaults beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Type' without allowed values).

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('List of Files/ Folders'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete media objects. However, it doesn't specify the exact output format or scope beyond 'files/folders', so it's clear but not highly detailed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over other media tools (e.g., when to use medias_bulk_delete_media_objects) or any context for use. It merely states the action without indicating scenarios or exclusions.

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