gemini-media-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what information will be returned (tiers, capabilities, resolutions, pricing) which helps understand the tool's behavior, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output format. Every word earns its place - no redundant information, properly front-loaded with the core action, and structured to immediately convey value.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides good context about what information will be returned. It covers the key aspects (models with their specifications) without needing to explain return values since output schema exists. Could be slightly more complete by mentioning it's a read operation.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters and focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('models supported by this server'), with explicit details about what information is included (tiers, capabilities, resolutions, pricing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_config' by focusing specifically on model metadata rather than general configuration.

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 context (when you need to know what models are available with their specifications), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_config' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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