da_media_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'search and filter' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about side effects or constraints.

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 sentence that efficiently lists filter criteria. It is front-loaded with the action ('Search and filter media items') and includes the most relevant filtering dimensions. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points or more detail on required parameters).

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 tool has 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as mandatory parameters (org/repo), expected output, or pagination. It does not clarify that org and repo are always required, nor does it explain the relationship between filters (e.g., additive vs exclusive). This leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing high coverage (100%). The description merely summarizes the filter options without adding new meaning or context beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.

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 tool searches and filters media items, listing key filter criteria (type, document, name, etc.). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on search/filter, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like da_media_get_index or da_media_find_usage.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., org and repo needed), or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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