get_offline_media

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns expected file paths and is for diagnosing broken links, which provides some context but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations. No behavioral contradictions are present.

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 with two sentences that front-load the main action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning, though it could potentially be more streamlined into a single sentence.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality and use case. However, it does not hint at the format or structure of the returned file paths, which would be helpful for the agent to understand the output. A bit more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for the description to explain parameter usage. Schema description coverage is 100% (since no params). The description does not add param-specific info but none is needed.

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 finds all offline/missing media and returns their expected file paths, which is a specific verb+resource. It also mentions the purpose (diagnosing broken links). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'check_offline_media' or 'relink_media', so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 when to use the tool by stating it is essential for diagnosing broken links, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on choosing this tool over related ones.

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