cigchat_media_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly indicates the HTTP method (GET) and the required scope, implying read-only access, but it does not detail response structure or pagination behavior. Some context is provided, but not rich behavioral 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?

Two terse sentences with no filler. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated efficiently.

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 a simple filtered-list tool with 4 optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential endpoint and auth scope. It is complete enough for a read operation, though lack of an output schema means the agent must infer response 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details, though 'member-uploaded' clarifies the context for user_id (workspace member). No additional value beyond schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'member-uploaded media' and the explicit endpoint [GET /media-library]. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools as the media retrieval function.

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 implies usage (when you need member-uploaded media) and states an access prerequisite ('Manage Team' scope), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond that prerequisite.

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