get_unused_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the tool is 'useful for cleaning up projects' but does not disclose additional behavioral details (e.g., whether it only lists media or also suggests deletion). No contradiction with annotations.

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 conveys the core functionality and a use case. It is efficient with no wasted words, fitting the criteria for conciseness.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it could briefly mention the output format (e.g., list of names or paths) to fully compensate for the missing output schema, but this is minor.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Find all project items that are NOT used in any sequence.' This is a specific verb (Find) and resource (unused media items), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_duplicate_media or get_used_media_report by focusing on unused items.

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 mentions 'Useful for cleaning up projects,' which implies usage context, but it does not specify when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools like get_used_media_report.

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