media_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List imported media' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether the list is paginated, sorted, or limited to a particular project/workspace, nor does it describe the return format. The description is too thin to give an agent confidence about the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it is so terse that it omits useful context, but as a concise statement it is efficient.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any detail about the output shape, ordering, or scope of the list. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent cannot know what fields will be returned or whether the list is global or scoped. Given the tool's simplicity, a 2 reflects the missing behavioral and output context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'List imported media' has a clear verb and resource, so an agent can tell it is a read-only listing operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like media_thumbnail or media_probe, which also operate on media, so the purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as media_probe or media_thumbnail. The description implies a simple listing use case but provides no exclusions or context about what kind of media is listed or how it relates to the import workflow.

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