check_offline_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the core functionality but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the project), performance considerations, or auth requirements. For a read-only check tool, minimal extra context is available; the description is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and gets straight to the point.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It states what is checked and what is returned. It could add a note about the nature of 'offline' but is otherwise complete for the tool's scope.

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 tool has no parameters (0 params, empty schema). According to the rubric, with 0 params the baseline score is 4. The description correctly makes no param references since none exist, so it fully covers parameter semantics by virtue of having none.

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: checking all project items and returning those that are offline (missing media). It specifies the verb (checks/returns) and the resource (project items). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'get_offline_media', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_offline_media' or 'get_unused_media'. The description only states what it does without any context on use cases, preconditions, or exclusions.

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