Media library

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive safety profile, so the description only adds the interactive gallery and thumbnails context. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit handling, or whether 'interactive' means a rendered UI vs. returned data, but output schema and annotations lessen the burden.

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 short, focused sentences. The main action and visual browsing purpose are front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement 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 single-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed tool, the description is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from list_media, but the phrase 'browse visually' largely covers that.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with a default value. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific action ('Open an interactive gallery') and identifies the resource ('uploaded media files') with a clear presentation format ('thumbnails and metadata'). It also signals the visual browsing use case, which distinguishes it from programmatic list tools like list_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?

It explicitly gives the trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants to browse their media library visually.' However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, especially given the presence of list_media and get_media as sibling tools.

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