list_media

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral detail about the return shape and its interoperability with create_post's media array, but says nothing about ordering or pagination beyond what the schema's defaults state.

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, front-loaded with resource and purpose, followed by the payoff detail. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and there is no filler.

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 must explain the return value — it does so at exactly the useful level by tying results to create_post's media array. Pagination mechanics and total counts are left implicit, which is a minor gap given the schema's documented defaults.

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%, so page, limit, type and search are already well documented with defaults and max. The description adds meaning the schema cannot: the returned items are already shaped for create_post's media array, an interface-level contract that materially affects how the agent uses filters and results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the media library already uploaded) and adds the reuse intent, which distinguishes it from the sibling upload_media by framing this as the reuse path.

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?

Gives a concrete context — reuse an asset instead of uploading it again — which implicitly steers agents away from upload_media when the asset exists. It does not name the alternative explicitly or state when-not-to-use, but the guidance is specific enough to act on.

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