list_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying that items are listed recursively and enumerating the output fields (ids, bin paths, file paths, frame counts, durations). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any limits, errors, or performance implications beyond the recursive behavior.

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 that states the action, resource, and then lists the returned attributes. It is efficient and contains no filler. The only minor improvement would be to structure the attribute list more visually, but it is already clear and compact.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema provided), and the description covers the core purpose and return contents. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema, and lacks explicit usage conditions. Still, for a straight read-only listing operation with an output schema, it is nearly complete but leaves the parameter behavior unexplained.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does not mention 'limit' at all—neither its meaning, effect on results, default value, nor how it interacts with recursion. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to understand and set the parameter correctly.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('media pool items'), and a precise scope ('recursively'), and enumerates the returned fields. This differentiates it from the sibling 'list_render_presets' by naming a distinct resource, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the 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?

The purpose inherently implies usage (call when you need to enumerate media pool items), but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not name alternative tools for similar tasks, so the guidance is only implied by the verb and resource.

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