ruddur_list_media_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the OAuth scope requirement ('media.read'), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention pagination, filtering, or potential large result sets despite openWorldHint=true.

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 sentences with no verbose padding. The first sentence states the action clearly and the second provides the auth requirement. 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 simple list operation with no output schema, the description lacks essential context about return shape, pagination, or filtering. The openWorldHint suggests broad results, but no mention is made of how to constrain the query. With zero required parameters, the agent has little to go on beyond the generic schema.

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%, but the 'body' and 'query' descriptions are generic framework-level text unrelated to media assets. The tool description provides no additional parameter semantics, so the agent cannot infer what query parameters (e.g., limit, offset, type) are meaningful for listing media assets. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema technically describes the parameters, but they add little specific value.

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 and resource ('List creator media assets') that clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like ruddur_create_media_upload or ruddur_delete_media_asset. The scope requirement is a useful addition that further clarifies the tool's role.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ruddur_list_waypoints or ruddur_list_headings. There are no mentions of filtering, pagination, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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