List the media in a Flow project

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: ordering ('newest first'), the full set of returned attributes, and how duplicate uploads are grouped with a keep-copy. It does not cover pagination limits, whether trashed items are excluded by default, or auth/sign-in requirements (cf. flow_sign_in sibling).

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action and ordering front-loaded; the long field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists. Slight density in the middle clause ('uploaded/generated, model, prompt, size, duration and what each generated item was made from') but nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema and only two parameters, the return-shape enumeration is exactly the burden the description must carry, and it does. Gaps remain around the trashed-item behavior and result-set size, but nothing blocks a correct first call given the required project_id.

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 50%: include_trashed is documented in the schema itself, while project_id carries only format/pattern. The description reinforces that scope is 'a project's' media but never explains project_id's source or what include_trashed does to the results. Adequate baseline, no added meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Lists a project's images and videos' — and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, image/video, model, prompt, size, duration, provenance), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not (flow_projects, flow_trash), so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'project's media' scoping.

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?

Provides clear downstream context: reuse listed items via media_ids instead of re-uploading, which tells the agent why it would call this tool. It also flags duplicateUploads aggregation. Missing explicit exclusions — e.g., when to use flow_trash instead, or when to skip this in favor of flow_projects.

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