list_media

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only specifies that date parameters must be ISO 8601, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination defaults, or what 'basic information' includes. This leaves significant gaps.

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 consists of two short sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical parameter formatting information. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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 complexity (11 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and a key parameter requirement but omits details about pagination, filtering options (e.g., by author, media type), and the scope of 'basic information'. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the format requirement for date parameters (ISO 8601 with specific pattern), which is not explicit in the schema descriptions. This adds minor value beyond the schema.

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 tool lists media files and retrieves basic information, with a specific verb (list) and resource (media files). Among siblings, there is no other media listing tool, so it distinguishes itself effectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for creating or updating media, use update_media or delete_media). It only describes the action without context about appropriate scenarios.

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