Postiz Media Manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'candidates for deletion,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects system state. The description lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential deletion implications.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and implication. Every sentence earns its place by defining orphaned media and indicating the tool's role in deletion workflows, with no unnecessary information or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (identifying unused media) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or result details. For a tool that interacts with media data and suggests deletion candidates, more context on permissions, side effects, or output structure 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 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'limit' documented as 'Maximum number of orphan media to return.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior if 'limit' is omitted or how results are ordered. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 orphaned media (media not used in any future posts).' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('orphaned media'), and defines what qualifies as orphaned media. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'postiz_cleanup_orphan_media' beyond implying that this tool only identifies candidates, while the sibling likely deletes them.

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 usage by stating these are 'candidates for deletion,' suggesting this tool should be used before deletion tools like 'postiz_cleanup_orphan_media.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'postiz_list_all_media' or 'postiz_get_media_stats,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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