da_media_get_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it states it's a read operation ('Get'), it does not disclose potential performance implications of retrieving the 'complete' media index (could be large), authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a safe and informed invocation.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: it specifies the action, the resource, the scope ('for a site'), and the output ('all media references with timestamp'). No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, size limits, or error conditions. For a tool that returns a 'complete index,' additional context about potential payload size or timeouts would be valuable. Nonetheless, it is functionally adequate for a straightforward read 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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (org, repo, path). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameter combinations or constraints.

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 action ('Get the complete media index') and the resource ('media.json for a site'), and specifies what is returned ('all media references with timestamp'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like da_media_search (which searches) and da_media_get_stats (which returns statistics) by implying this tool returns the full index.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings such as da_media_search or da_media_find_usage. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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