components_v2_build_media_gallery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a `{component}` JSON node and specifies 'type 12', clarifying the nature of the operation as a pure builder that produces a structured output. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise: two bolded lines covering purpose and return value. Every word provides value, with no fluff or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it scannable for an AI agent.

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 builder tool with a single parameter and full output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the media gallery type, item count range, and return type. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, the agent has all necessary context to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, with the schema fully describing the 'items' parameter including its properties (url, spoiler, description) and constraints (1-10 items). The description merely repeats '1-10 media items', adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Build a Components V2 MediaGallery (type 12)' with a specific item limit. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('MediaGallery'), distinguishing it from sibling component tools like container or section builders. The return value is also defined, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 purpose statement inherently communicates when to use this tool: when you need to construct a MediaGallery component. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear enough from the tool name and sibling list. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the narrow scope makes misuse unlikely.

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