vast_list_non_linear_media

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely restates the operation without revealing that it is read-only, how pagination works, or what data is returned. The limit/offset parameters imply pagination, but the description does not explain default limits, result ordering, or whether archived/soft-deleted media are included. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, with a single sentence and no wasted words. For a simple list tool, this brevity is acceptable. However, it is so minimal that it borders on being a restatement of the tool name, lacking any additional structural elements like bullet points or context. It earns a 4 for efficiency but not perfection.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'non-linear media' refers to in the VAST context, nor does it mention pagination behavior or result scope beyond the schema. While not a complex tool, the description could be richer to aid an AI agent in understanding expected behavior and return format.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and offset), with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding. It does not explain how these parameters interact or provide examples, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 all VAST non-linear media.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('VAST non-linear media'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vast_get_non_linear_media, vast_create_non_linear_media, and vast_update_non_linear_media. The inclusion of 'all' clarifies the scope, making it evident this is a listing operation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a bare statement with no context on when to invoke it or how it differs from similar list tools like vast_list_linear_media or vast_list_media.

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