List media assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read only. Nothing is changed.' is redundant, but it adds valuable context: the required secret key scope ('wv_sk_' with 'media:read') and the default ordering ('newest first'). This exceeds what annotations provide, though it omits details like error 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'Read only. Nothing is changed.' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, making it slightly less efficient, but overall it's a tightly structured three-sentence description.

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?

The description covers the core action, ordering, auth, and safety, but it omits any mention of the response format or pagination. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure (e.g., a list with `next_cursor` for pagination). The cursor parameter's description partially covers this, but the tool-level description remains incomplete.

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 description provides no parameter-level semantics, but the input schema already documents limit (with clamping), cursor (opaque, do not parse), and fields (default projection) in detail. The only undocumented parameter is bucket, but its enum values are provided in the schema. With 75% schema description coverage, the description's silence is acceptable; it adds nothing but also doesn't need to.

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 function: 'List media assets.' It adds specific context ('The media library, newest first') and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_articles or list_categories. The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 its use for listing media assets but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools such as get_media (for a specific asset) or upload_media. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage guidance is only implied.

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