get_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ungenerated sizes are absent, that access is permission-checked (errors for unauthorized content), and includes a licensing note. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose, a behavior summary, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the licensing note is brief and relevant.

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 2-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, permissions, licensing, and parameters. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it still describes CDN size URLs and absent sizes, making it complete for effective 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains media_id with an example (14056 or '14056'), enumerates media_type values ('images', 'videos', 'documents'), and notes the default 'images'. This adds practical guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('media object's CDN URLs by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (guides, devices, users) by focusing on media retrieval.

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 usage for resolving media URLs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other tools. No reference to sibling tools or alternative approaches is provided.

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