Get media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond the verb – it does not state that it requires a valid media ID, what happens if the item is missing, or what kind of data is returned.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is appropriately sized only because the tool is very simple.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify that it returns media metadata and how to identify the media item. With annotations covering safety but no explanation of return values or ID semantics, the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 0% for the single parameter, mediaId. The description does not compensate by explaining what mediaId refers to, whether it is an internal or platform ID, or what format it takes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one media item') and the singular 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list_media. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives or clarifying the identifier-based lookup, but an agent can still understand its purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_media or get_clip, and no prerequisites or conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer that it is for retrieving a single item by ID.

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