tracearr_get_media

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail explaining that the tool normalizes various ref formats into a canonical identity and computes availability, which goes beyond the annotation and helps set expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then gives necessary format details. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 an output schema available, the description focuses on input semantics and the general resolution result. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it doesn't explain edge cases or error behavior, which is acceptable given the output schema.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'ref' parameter, but the description fully compensates by explaining the exact accepted formats (canonical uuid or type-qualified provider ref), including concrete examples. This provides complete semantic meaning for the parameter.

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 action ('Resolve a media ref') and the output ('canonical identity, merged ids, and per-server availability'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media_history or get_media_children, which focus on different aspects.

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 concrete context on when to use the tool by specifying the acceptable ref formats and what resolution entails. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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