view_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavior details such as 'renders it with native playback controls' and 'Returns metadata: filename, media_type, size_bytes, mime_type.' This provides useful context beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 well-structured with a clear opening summary, parameter details, discovery guidance, and return metadata. Each sentence contributes useful information, and the format is easy to scan.

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 tool purpose, parameter semantics, discovery steps, and return metadata. For a simple read-only media viewer with no output schema, this is nearly complete. It doesn't mention error handling or absolute paths, but those are minor gaps given the straightforward nature.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies media_type enum values and gives directory guidance for filename ('video files are in the videos directory', etc.), adding meaning the schema completely lacks.

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 'Open a media file in the interactive media viewer' and specifies that it handles video, audio, and image playback. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_video, create_video, and remix_video, which are obviously different operations.

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 tells users to use list_videos, list_reference_images, or list_audio_files to discover available files, which implies this tool is for viewing existing media. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like download_video, the intended use case is clear and well-contextualized.

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