media

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

The description discloses the side effects of downloading files to local storage and notes that the 'prompt' parameter is ignored for backward compatibility. It also mentions that the 'analyze' action has been removed and returns an error. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or potential overwriting behavior. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent with the description, and no contradiction is present.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions and parameters, and includes a typical workflow section. It is somewhat verbose due to the deprecation notice, but every sentence adds value. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists but not described), the description covers the main workflow, actions, parameters, and deprecation. It lacks details on the output schema (e.g., metadata structure) and does not address the 'max_items' parameter, but is otherwise complete for typical use cases.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining each parameter's role (url for list, media_urls for download, media_type filter, output_dir default) and providing examples. However, the 'max_items' parameter from the schema is not mentioned, leaving a gap in documentation.

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 purpose: discover and download media files from web pages. It specifies two distinct actions (list and download) with examples, and explicitly notes the removal of the 'analyze' action, which helps avoid confusion. The tool's scope is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools like extract or search.

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 description provides a typical workflow (list then download) and mentions using imagine-mcp for analysis, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. It offers some context for usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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