media_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output shape (structured markdown list with file title, type, caption, thumbnail URL), notes lead-media marking, identifies the underlying endpoint and that it is structured JSON with no HTML parsing, and states the limit default/max. Remaining gaps are minor (error behavior, truncation signaling beyond limit).

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?

Front-loads the core scope in the first clause, then layers output shape, the `image` comparison, and the `limit` semantics. A few sentences are dense but each earns its place; no restating of the tool name or boilerplate.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers scope, output format, sibling routing, and a key parameter constraint — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. It could mention error/empty cases or auth requirements, but those are minor for a public Wikipedia endpoint.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add useful runtime context for `limit` (default 25, max 100, clamping behavior) and confirms that `title` is the article being inventoried, but it doesn't add anything beyond the schema for `lang`.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (all media in a Wikipedia article) and immediately disambiguates scope ('not just the lead thumbnail'). It names the sibling `image` and draws the exact boundary between the two, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (`image` for the headline thumbnail) and the conditions that select this tool ('full inventory — gallery generation, fact-checking, slide decks, audits'). It also anticipates the case where the caller already has the lead media ('marked so callers can skip it when they already have it via `image`').

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