List media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that with the 'newest first' ordering guarantee and the per-field semantics of status, including that videos lack thumbnails yet. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or what happens when limit is omitted.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then flows into the field list and a practical instruction. Nearly every clause carries information; only the parenthetical about video thumbnails is slightly verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no output annotations, the description carries the entire return-value burden and does so thoroughly: identity, kind, lifecycle status, name, alt text, size, dimensions, duration, and thumbnail availability per media type. Only paging semantics remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 50%: status is well documented in the schema itself, while limit has only a min/max constraint and no description anywhere. The description mentions the three status values but frames them as return fields rather than filter semantics, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter (default value, paging behavior).

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource combination ('Images and videos in the media library, newest first') that is unmistakably a collection read, distinguishing it from the singleton postfjord_get_media without naming it. The returned-field enumeration reinforces the scope.

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?

'Use the ids as mediaIds' implies the downstream workflow (attaching media to posts), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus postfjord_get_media or postfjord_list_* siblings, and no mention of how to widen or page results beyond the limit cap.

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