get_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful interpretation context beyond that: that referenced_by_count>1 is normal, and that shared checksums indicate duplicates. It omits failure behavior (e.g., missing handle) but that is a minor gap.

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 first line is tightly front-loaded and efficient. The second paragraph is somewhat tangential for a single-object read (explaining aggregate referenced_by_count semantics) but still earns its place as interpretation guidance.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only error/absence handling is unaddressed.

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% and the single 'media' parameter is documented in the schema as a handle or gramps_id. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the returned-field list, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one media object') and enumerates the returned fields (path, mime type, checksum, description, date), which clearly separates it from add_media, update_media, and ocr_media siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read one media object' and the checksum sentence implicitly routes duplicate hunting to find_duplicates(kind='media_checksum'). However there is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_media over get_object, query_objects, or other retrieval siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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