mixpost_list_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only repeats the tool's name and does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, or what fields are returned. It adds minimal context beyond the name and schema.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and scope. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about what the returned list contains or how pagination works. Given no annotations, a bit more detail (e.g., 'returns paginated results') would make it 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?

All three parameters (page, type, limit) have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema fully documents each parameter's purpose.

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 ('List') and resource ('media files') with a clear scope ('in the workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mixpost_get_media, mixpost_update_media, and mixpost_delete_media by indicating a listing operation.

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 implies usage for listing media, and the sibling names clarify it is for the collection rather than a single item. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over mixpost_get_media or mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so guidance is only implied.

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