gemini-media-mcp

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 the prerequisite (video_status completion) and implies this is a read operation (downloading), but does not specify file format, size limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 provides crucial usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding essential information.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), a simple parameter set with full schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and prerequisite context, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like file handling or errors.

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 the single parameter (operationId). The description implies the parameter comes from previous calls (generate_video, animate_image, or extend_video) but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('Download a completed video generation') and the resource ('to a local file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_video, animate_image, or video_status. It explicitly indicates this is for retrieval after completion, not for creation or status checking.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Only call this after video_status reports the operation is complete.' It names the prerequisite tool (video_status) and specifies the condition (operation complete), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like generate_video or video_status.

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