ghl_get_media_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool gets files and folders, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The basic behavior is clear, but deeper transparency is lacking.

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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., whether it's a list of objects, how files and folders are represented), nor does it describe pagination or default behavior. The complexity of the filtering/sorting options is not reflected in the description, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

The schema description coverage is 57%, with descriptions for type, query, sortBy, and parentId, but not for limit, offset, or sortOrder. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information. While parameter names and enums provide some meaning, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details. This is adequate but not helpful beyond the 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 action: getting files and folders from the GHL media library. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('files and folders in the GHL media library'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_delete_media_file. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 the tool's use case (retrieving media library contents) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The context among siblings is clear enough that the intended usage is inferable, but the description itself lacks explicit direction.

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