authoring-get-media-item

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real value on top by enumerating the returned fields, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It does not mention authorization scope, paging, or behavior when the id/path is absent from the requested database.

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: capability, then use cases, then the id/path constraint last. Front-loaded purpose and zero 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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call it, and the key argument constraint, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around default database/language behavior and what happens when the item is not found.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule 'Supply exactly one of id or path', which the per-property text ('Supply this or path') does not state as strictly. It adds nothing about database/language, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Reads a media item') plus the returned fields (identity, mime type, size, URL), which implicitly separates it from media-download (bytes) and generic authoring-get-item. It never names a competing sibling explicitly, so an agent facing authoring-get-item vs authoring-get-media-item must still infer the boundary from the word 'media'.

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?

Gives two concrete scenarios — 'after authoring-upload-media to get the ID an image field value needs' and 'check what is already in the media library' — and names the sibling it follows. It stops short of an explicit when-not or an alternative-tool routing rule.

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