get_media_details

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict this. It adds only the word 'detailed' without explaining what that includes (e.g., metadata fields, streaming URLs). Since annotations cover safety, the bar is lower, but the description still provides no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter and safety annotations, so the description is largely sufficient. However, the phrase 'detailed information' is vague and no output schema exists, leaving some uncertainty about the exact return payload. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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% with the ratingKey parameter described as 'The rating key of the media item.' The description does not add additional meaning beyond 'specific media item,' so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific media item,' which distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools like get_library_items and search_media by focusing on a single item identified by a rating key.

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 implied: use this when you have a ratingKey and need detailed information. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and parameter.

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