nexus_search_media

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the server-side flakiness pattern, including the exact error shape and the retry recommendation. It also documents the deliberately removed adultContent filter and explains the return shape and pagination behavior. This is rich, honest behavioral context that an agent needs to use the tool reliably.

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: purpose first, followed by critical caveat, then return format and pagination. Every sentence carries operational value, especially the flakiness note and the offset pagination rule. It is longer than one sentence, but the length is justified by the complexity and failure mode.

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 10 optional parameters, a full input schema, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the only major missing context would be practical operational guidance. The description covers the key gaps: retry behavior, removed filter, union return types, and how to paginate. Nothing needed for correct invocation is overlooked.

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?

Since the input schema already documents all 10 parameters at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine extra value by explaining pagination mechanics ('Paginate with offset += _returned') and warning about a filter that was deliberately excluded. It does not perfectly annotate every parameter, but it supplements the schema where practical behavior matters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search site-wide media (images, supporter images, videos) via v2 GraphQL.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like nexus_search_mods, nexus_search_users, and nexus_search_games. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 gives a clear context for media searching and labels the endpoint as site-wide, which implies when it should be used. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. There is no exclusion guidance, but the resource focus is concrete enough to orient an agent.

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