get_media_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the primary behavior (retrieving metadata) and lists the specific return fields, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not mention error cases or permission requirements, but for a simple getter, the main behavioral trait is covered.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately lists the returned metadata fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (URL, MIME type, file size, hash). It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case information, but for a read-only metadata getter, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for media_id ('The media ID to retrieve info for'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a media object by ID'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (URL, MIME type, file size, SHA-256 hash). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_media (content retrieval) and delete_media (destructive operation).

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 for fetching metadata rather than content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'metadata'.

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