media.capabilities

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the manifest framing suggests no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, how the manifest is structured, or whether it reflects provider-specific capabilities. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential action and resource scope immediately.

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 zero-input tool this is minimally viable: an agent can invoke it without parameters and expect a manifest. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a 'capability manifest' contains or how the V1-V6 versions are represented, leaving meaningful ambiguity about the return format.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds the useful detail that the returned manifest covers V1 through V6, which is the only semantic context needed for a no-input call.

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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('V1-V6 capability manifest'), so an agent can tell it returns capability information. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like media.provider.status or media.job.status, but the version-scoped manifest is reasonably distinctive.

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 given about when to call this tool versus alternatives, or when it should be used as a prerequisite for other media operations. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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