List project media

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that references are resolved the same way Kdenlive resolves them (project root, moved projects, proxies) and that URLs are reported but never fetched — a real network-safety guarantee the annotations don't express. It also states a concrete cap ('up to 50 available files') for probing, giving the agent a limit it could not otherwise know.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the diagnostic and probing details. Every clause carries information — resolution rules, no-fetch guarantee, probe cap — with no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers the remaining risk areas: path resolution semantics, missing/unreadable file diagnosis, network behavior, and probe limits. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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; the description earns an extra point by explaining what probe=true actually yields (streams, codecs, sizes, frame rates, rotation) and the 50-file ceiling, which is not encoded in the schema. max_items is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the media referenced by a Kdenlive project's bin') and extends it to effect/transition assets such as LUTs and luma wipes, so the scope is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from get_timeline (bin vs. timeline) and probe_media (optional inline probing), but never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for auditing bin assets and finding missing files, and that probe=true adds metadata. There is no explicit 'use this instead of probe_media / inspect_project when…' guidance, and the overlap with the sibling probe_media tool is left for the agent to resolve.

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