Get attribution

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only covers license and style options, but omits key traits: whether it is read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, rate limits, or output format details. The safe nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The core action and options are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple, yet the description lacks output format details (e.g., structure of attribution lines) and error handling. It is minimally adequate but omits context like whether items must be from Pexels or how invalid items are treated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'used media' and styles but does not clarify the items parameter structure (id/type pairs) or constraints (max/min items). The schema's enum for style is repeated but not explained.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'attribution lines for used media'. It also lists the styles (plain, markdown, html) and mentions the Pexels license, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_photos or download_media.

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 after obtaining media IDs (items), and mentions three output styles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_media) or when not to use it.

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