nasa_media_asset

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 does disclose that the tool returns downloadable files of several types, but it does not describe the return format, possible multiple assets, error behavior, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function and output.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description covers the main output categories (image, video, audio, caption, metadata). It could be more complete by noting that the ID typically comes from nasa_search_media or describing the exact response structure, but it is adequate for a simple resolver.

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?

There is one parameter, nasa_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by saying it is a NASA media ID that resolves to files, but it does not explain where to obtain the ID, its format, or provide examples. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('NASA media ID'), and clearly states the output: downloadable image, video, audio, caption, and metadata files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nasa_search_media, which searches instead of resolving.

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 the tool should be used when you already have a NASA media ID to resolve, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives such as nasa_search_media, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is 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.