list_note_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly disclose side effects, permissions, or any special behavior regarding media ownership or access. The output schema covers the return shape, but safety and behavioral context remain thin.

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 a single, front-loaded, unambiguous sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple tool with one self-evident required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It could be strengthened by explicit read-only confirmation or guidance on how this relates to get_note, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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 only parameter, note_id, is self-descriptive, and the phrase 'on a note' maps clearly to it despite 0% schema description coverage. However, the description does not add any detail about expected format, constraints, or how the ID must be obtained, leaving the schema's bare string type to carry all meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and object ('media attachments') with a clear scope ('on a note'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note or update_note, none of which focus on media attachments.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the action verb.

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