list_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds context about search and MIME filtering, which are useful but already present in the schema. It does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination limits or response format, but with the annotations covering the core safety, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. It directly states the tool's purpose and key filtering capabilities without redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (five optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It mentions search, MIME filtering, and field selection, which are the main entry points. It could mention return structure or pagination, but the schema already handles parameter limits, and the tool name implies a list response. This is complete enough for typical use.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds a nudge to use the fields param for requesting only needed fields, which is helpful but not essential. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('WordPress media library items'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_products and list_orders by explicitly naming the media library, and the mention of search and MIME type filtering adds purposeful detail.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to list media items. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear without confusing exclusions. The inclusion of search and MIME filtering signals typical use cases.

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