get_media

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

With no annotations, the word 'Return' is the only explicit behavioral signal that this is a non-mutating read operation, and the field list communicates what will come back. It does not disclose auth expectations, error behavior, or the role of the optional account parameter, but the core read behavior is clear.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds information. It is appropriately concise even though some usage context is absent.

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 low-complexity getter with an output schema, the basic call is clear: provide a media id. However, the optional account parameter and the distinction from list_media / get_media_insights are left unexplained, so an agent navigating many siblings gets only partial context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'by id' maps to the required media_id, but the optional account parameter is entirely unexplained, and the listed fields are output fields rather than parameter semantics.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('full fields for one media object by id') with a parenthetical field list. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_media or get_media_insights.

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 its use case: fetch a single media object's full fields when you already have the media id. It does not state when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives such as list_media or get_media_insights.

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