list_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content (name, pixel size, file size), implying a read-only listing operation, but says nothing about permissions, depth limits, or behavior when the folder is empty/invalid.

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?

Front-loaded with a single sentence describing the result, followed by two tight parameter notes. No wasted words; appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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, non-destructive list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it lists, what it returns, and both parameters. The main gap is usage context relative to siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting 'folder' as an absolute path and 'recursive' as searching nested folders. This adds meaning the bare schema lacks, though format/error handling details are absent.

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 states a specific verb and resource — listing image and video files in a folder — and even names the returned fields (name, pixel dimensions, file size). It is clearly distinguishable from the view-processing siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (inspect, view, compare, etc.). Usage is only implied by the verb 'list'. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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