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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only operation for listing IDs and includes a critical constraint ('These media should NOT be deleted'), which adds valuable context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or performance considerations, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and critical usage warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. However, it could be more comprehensive by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., a list of IDs) or linking to sibling tools for related operations, which would enhance contextual understanding without overloading the description.

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, clearly documenting the optional 'statuses' parameter with its default values. The description does not add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List all media IDs'), the resource ('protected media'), and the criteria ('used in future posts with status: draft, scheduled, or queued'). It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on protected media rather than orphaned media or general media lists, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 for when to use this tool: to identify media that should not be deleted because they are protected for future posts. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'postiz_list_all_media' for all media), which prevents a perfect score. The guidance is implied but not exhaustive.

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