media

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

The description openly discloses that the tool downloads files to local storage (a side effect consistent with readOnlyHint=false), and it explains the reserved 'prompt' parameter is ignored. It also describes the legacy action removal, adding context beyond the 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?

The description is structured with bullet points and examples, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose due to the workflow and legacy notes, but every section adds value and aids usage.

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?

The description covers actions, parameters, workflow, and even directs to the help tool for full documentation. Given the output schema exists and the tool is complex, the description is remarkably complete and self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by explaining url, media_urls, media_type, output_dir, and prompt behavior. It also gives defaults and examples, though it omits 'max_items' and detailed accepted values for 'action'.

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 it discovers and downloads media files, lists specific actions (list, download) with examples, and distinguishes from sibling tools like extract and search by naming the resource type (media) and workflow. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains the typical workflow (list then download), tells when to use which action, and points to the alternative for LLM analysis (imagine-mcp's understand action). It also warns that the legacy 'analyze' action is removed, preventing misuse.

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