list_media

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted newest first, `pagination.total` reflects the full count across pages (not just the current page), and no text-search capability exists. It does not discuss rate limits or behavior when a folder slug does not exist, but the added context is substantive.

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 short lines, with the result ordering and pagination fact front-loaded before the field list and the no-search caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so enumerating asset fields is a minor redundancy, and it is otherwise complete: ordering, pagination total semantics, and the absence of search are all covered. The only gap is how folder filtering interacts with paging and recursive, which the schema covers at a basic level.

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 page, limit, folder, folder_id and recursive are all documented in the schema. The description only hints at folder filtering via "filter by filename or folder" and does not clarify the folder vs folder_id or recursive distinctions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists ready assets"), adds ordering ("newest first") and pagination semantics ("`pagination.total` across all pages"). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like list_folders and list_presets, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives actionable guidance for the retrieval task: "There is no text search: page through and filter by filename or folder." That tells an agent how to use the tool rather than what alternatives exist; it does not mention list_folders or folder_id vs folder slug selection, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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