media_assets_listList a bounded page of owned media assets in SHA-256 order with fresh byte checks and explicit unhealthy states.
List a bounded page with fresh byte checks and explicit unhealthy states.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum asset records returned | |
| offset | No | Offset into SHA-256 ordered owned assets |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that listing triggers 'fresh byte checks' and can surface 'explicit unhealthy states'. This tells the agent the call is not a pure cached read and that results may include error states.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, economy that gets the read-only, paginated nature across quickly. It borders on cryptic (
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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain results. What remains missing is sibling routing and any hint of cost/latency implied by the fresh byte checks, but the structured metadata supplies most of what an agent needs.
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 limit and offset (including the SHA-256 ordering) are already fully documented. The description's 'bounded page' phrasing only echoes the pagination concept without adding format or ordering detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb 'List' is clear and the name supplies the resource ('media_assets'), but the description itself never names what is listed and never distinguishes it from siblings like media_info, media_metadata, or media_source_inspect. 'List a bounded page' is a vague purpose statement that leans on the title to be understood.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, no exclusions, and no alternative sibling is named. An agent cannot infer from the text whether this should be preferred over media_info or media_metadata for inspecting owned assets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.