get_media_details

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description simply says 'Get detailed information' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the media_id is invalid, what 'detailed information' includes, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 that clearly communicates the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description provides enough information to understand how to invoke it (provide a media_id). However, without an output schema, the description does not clarify what 'detailed information' means or what fields will be returned, leaving some ambiguity about the expected response. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%: the media_id parameter has a clear description ('Media ID from a previous generation call.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific generated media item.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource (detailed information about a media item), and emphasizes 'specific,' distinguishing it from sibling tool list_media which likely lists all media items.

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: you need a media_id from a previous generation call (as stated in the parameter description). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_media, nor does it offer any exclusions or alternative recommendations. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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