get_offline_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns expected file paths but is silent on whether it is read-only, scope (entire project), or any side effects. For a diagnostic tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Two sentences, minimal and direct. No unnecessary words, fully front-loaded with purpose and benefit.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return format. 'Expected file paths' is vague; it does not specify structure (list, map) or other potentially useful fields. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not complete.

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 are no parameters (schema has no properties), so the description does not need to explain them. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add irrelevant parameter info.

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 explicitly states the tool finds 'all offline/missing media in the project with their expected file paths', with a clear purpose of diagnosing broken links. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_offline_media' which likely only checks existence.

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 labels the tool as 'essential for diagnosing broken links', hinting at use case, but does not specify when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., check_offline_media) or exclude scenarios. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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