Get Used Media Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the report's scope (counts, tracks, offline detection) but nothing about performance, large-sequence behavior, or return shape. Adds some value over annotations, not rich context.

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 that names the resource first and then enumerates scope. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 read-only report tool with an output schema present, the description is essentially complete: the agent knows the resource, the optional scoping parameter (from schema), and the nature of the payload. Only minor gain would come from contrasting it with sibling media-audit tools.

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% and the single parameter's schema already explains that it accepts a sequence name/ID and defaults to the active sequence. The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (used media report) and enumerates the report's contents: source files used, appearance counts, tracks, and offline status. This cleanly separates it from siblings like get_unused_media, get_duplicate_media, and check_offline_media.

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?

Usage is implied by describing what the report contains (useful when auditing which source media a sequence consumes), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling media/inspection tools. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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