Get media file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety ambiguity exists. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming exactly what will be returned (metadata, URL, dimensions, labels), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, no filler. The action and return summary are front-loaded, and the usage condition is tucked into a short second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only getter, this is nearly complete: it identifies the input, describes the output, and gives a usage trigger. It does not cover error cases like 'not found,' but those are not essential for tool selection and the annotations handle safety context.

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 coverage is 100% and mediaId is already described as 'The media file ID.' The description reinforces the ID-based lookup but does not add new semantic details such as format, uniqueness, or lookup behavior beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('single media file'), and selection key ('by ID'), and enumerates returned fields (metadata, URL, dimensions, labels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_media, delete_media, and upload_media.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'when the user references one specific media file by ID.' It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the condition is clear enough for straightforward selection.

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