tracearr_get_media_children

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

The `readOnlyHint` annotation already declares this a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral nuance by distinguishing between canonical media UUIDs and provider refs, plus the constraint that seasons are UUID-only. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every clause adds information: list behavior, episode counts, ref type, and the UUID-only constraint. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's dual behavior and ref constraints, and an output schema exists to document return values. It is slightly ambiguous whether a movie ref would error or return nothing, but for a simple list tool this is adequately complete.

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 provides only a bare `ref` string with no description, so the description carries the full load. It explains that `ref` can be a canonical media UUID or a provider ref and specifies that seasons are UUID-only, giving the agent actionable parameter guidance.

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 ('List') and names the exact resources ('a show's seasons' or 'a season's episodes'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like history or stats. It also notes episode counts, adding useful scoping detail.

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 implies the appropriate use case by explaining that the tool lists child media items (seasons or episodes) and clarifies the `ref` format. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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