search_media

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, lowering the bar. The description still adds substantial value by disclosing matching semantics ('by meaning'), result ordering ('Best hit first'), and the exact return fields (path, kind, at, about) in the absence of an output schema. It stops short of covering edge cases like empty results.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the opening clause, then adds result-shape and usage detail. It is information-dense and each sentence earns its place, though the long parenthetical example lists make it slightly heavier than strictly needed.

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?

For a semantic search tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is searched, what each result contains (including the meaning of 'at' and 'about'), ordering, and typical use cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that 'query' is matched by meaning with concrete examples and maps the 'kinds' enum to observable media types. This clarifies intent beyond the terse schema text 'What to find, in plain words'.

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: 'Find footage by meaning across the whole library' and enumerates exactly what is searched (clips by scene, stills/thumbnails, and spoken/scripted words). It cleanly distinguishes itself from sibling listers like list_broll, list_music, and get_library by being a semantic search rather than an enumeration.

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 concrete when-to-use scenarios: 'find b-roll for a storyboard shot or an edit before asking the user to film it' and 'find an old take or clip the user describes', plus the 'Same search as ⌘K' anchor. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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