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 goes beyond that by disclosing return-field semantics (referenced_by_count >1 is normal, shared checksums indicate duplicates), which is valuable given there is no output 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then two compact notes on interpreting results. The em-dash asides and backticked field references are slightly informal but each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and explains how to interpret the reference count and checksum. This compensates well for the missing output schema, leaving only the get_object vs get_media distinction 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 fully documented as 'Handle or gramps_id of the media object.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 fields it returns (path, mime type, checksum, description, date). It is clearly distinct from the get_person/get_event/get_source siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the generic get_object, which could also fetch 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?

It routes the agent toward find_duplicates(kind='media_checksum') for duplicate hunting and explains how to read referenced_by_count, which is useful context. However, it never states plainly when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_object, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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