List Dare uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It also adds the 'cursor-paginated' behavior, which is not present in the annotations and is valuable for an agent to understand pagination semantics.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, then covers the two most important behavioral traits (read-only and cursor-paginated). There is no wasted wording or redundant restating of the title.

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 optional-parameter list tool with rich annotations, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, that it is read-only, and how pagination behaves. It doesn't spell out the exact response format, but the response_format parameter and the mention of storage keys give enough guidance for calling the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (limit, cursor, response_format) are already well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('previously uploaded reference media'), and adds the key output detail ('with their storage keys'). The scope is clear and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like dare_list_generations, dare_list_models, and dare_list_projects merely by the resource type.

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 usage context: call this when you need to see previously uploaded reference media. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or name any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied rather than directly stated.

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