Postiz Media Manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs deletion (destructive action) and offers a dry-run mode for safety. It doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what constitutes 'orphaned', but the core behavior is well-described.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context (dry-run). It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place.

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 complexity (destructive cleanup with safety features), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and key behavior (dry-run), but lacks details on what 'orphaned' means, deletion consequences, or output format, leaving minor gaps.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('dryRun' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description mentions dry-run mode but adds no new syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('clean up') and resource ('orphaned media files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'postiz_find_orphan_media' (which likely identifies but doesn't delete) and 'postiz_list_all_media' (which lists without cleanup). The mention of deletion makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by mentioning dry-run mode for previewing deletions, which implies when to use it (for safe cleanup with optional simulation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'postiz_find_orphan_media' for just identification.

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