List library media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the shape of what comes back (ids, titles, folders, storage keys) — genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about scope, pagination, or whether all uploads are returned, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Two tight clauses, front-loaded on the resource, with no filler sentences. The second clause about generation tools is the most valuable part and is placed last, which is a minor ordering weakness rather than bloat.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and rich schema descriptions, the description supplies the missing piece — what the items contain and why the ids matter. Only pagination/scope behavior is unaddressed, which is a small gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single workspaceId parameter, whose default and meaning are documented in the schema itself. The description only gestures at workspace scoping ('in the workspace library') without adding format or default semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter load.

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 the specific resource (media in the workspace library) and enumerates its contents — uploaded clips and images, with ids, titles, folders, storage keys. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from list-focused siblings such as list_folders or list_slideshows, relying on the noun 'library media' to do that work.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative. The closing clause ('The ids here are what reference-taking generation tools expect') implies the usage pattern — fetch ids before calling generate_image/generate_video — but the agent has to infer that this is the look-up step rather than read it.

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