List media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by noting the list returns metadata, supports search/pagination, and is scoped to uploaded media. It does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination shape or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is already covered by annotations.

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 core action, no filler. The first sentence identifies the operation and scope; the second sentence provides return-value highlights and a clear usage condition. Every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return metadata (URLs, dimensions, labels) and mentioning search/pagination. It is complete enough for a simple read-only list operation, though it could add slightly more detail about the paginated response structure or total count behavior, which is only present in the schema's type parameter description.

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 (page, type, limit, search) are already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that search and pagination are optional, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema—it just repeats the concepts already present.

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'), identifies the resource ('uploaded media files'), and differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_media (single fetch), upload_media, and delete_media by framing the operation as a filtered, paginated list. It also names the key return fields, so an agent knows exactly what kind of result to expect.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user wants a list of their uploaded media files.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it (e.g., for retrieving a single file, use get_media instead).

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