qobrix_list_media

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 discloses the non-standard response shape without pagination metadata, the required parameter pairing, and the exact list of returned fields. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: from the resource definition to lifecycle context, pagination warning, parameter pairing, examples, alternative tool, and return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and well-organized.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents return values and response shape, covers usage contexts for multiple entity types, and provides a cross-reference to a sibling tool. It is a complete, self-contained reference for the media listing operation.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between related_model and related_id, offering concrete example values for each entity type, and introducing the 'global media' mode when both are omitted. This goes far beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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+resource: 'List media items (RESO Media resource)' and enumerates content types (photos, documents, floor plans). It distinguishes itself from siblings like qobrix_get_media and qobrix_list_properties by explaining its role in the Media Lifecycle and cross-referencing alternatives.

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?

It provides concrete usage scenarios (properties, contacts, projects) and explicitly names qobrix_list_properties as an alternative for embedding media. It also explains the critical constraint of pairing related_model and related_id, or omitting both.

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