mixpost_get_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details', implying a read operation, but does not state whether it is non-destructive, what fields are returned, how errors or not-found cases are handled, or any permissions required. The brevity leaves the agent without critical context about the operation's effects and output.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the key verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps: it fails to mention what 'details' includes, any return format, usage guidance vs. sibling tools, or error behavior. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more descriptive context, which is not provided.

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?

The single parameter mediaUuid is fully described in the input schema ('The UUID of the media file to retrieve'), yielding 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient for parameter understanding, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific media file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mixpost_update_media, mixpost_delete_media, and mixpost_list_media. It unambiguously conveys this tool retrieves a single media file's details.

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 context is implied by the name and description: use for a single media file by UUID, versus list operations for multiple files. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it over alternatives, no exclusion of list/update scenarios, and no mention of prerequisites or typical workflows.

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