ima_get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '获取' implies a read, but nothing is said about permission requirements, error behavior when media_id is invalid, which media types are covered, or what each of the two return modes actually yields.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, which is appropriate in size. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of clarity about the dual return behavior.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description does far too little. It should at minimum explain the two return modes, when each occurs, and what media_id refers to.

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 single parameter media_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. There is no indication of where media_id comes from (a knowledge list result?) or what format it takes, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (知识库媒体/knowledge-base media), so the general action is clear. However, the 'or' construction ('原文访问地址或笔记扩展信息') makes the actual return ambiguous and does not differentiate it from siblings like ima_get_image_url or ima_get_note_content.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. The two possible outputs implicitly hint at use cases, but the agent must infer which situation selects this tool over ima_get_image_url or ima_get_note_content.

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