search_cached_media

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's additional behavioral context is limited but useful: it clarifies that the tool retrieves past analysis results and avoids re-downloading. It does not disclose pagination, return format, or cache freshness, which would add more transparency. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'REQUIRED,' and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, use cases, and benefit. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no enums, placing a burden on the description to explain behavior and results. The description covers purpose and use cases well but lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., a list of media items, metadata, or full analysis results). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the intent of four parameters (brand_name, has_people, color_contains, media_type) via phrases like 'by brand name' and 'with people.' However, it omits the 'limit' parameter and does not clarify value formats (e.g., how colors should be specified). This partial compensation warrants a 3.

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's purpose: 'finding previously analyzed ad media (images and videos) in cache.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('cached media') with a clear scope ('previously analyzed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_ad_video or search_tiktok_ads, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when users want to search for cached media by brand name, find media with people, search by colors, or filter by media type.' It also highlights a key advantage ('without re-downloading media'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to alternatives like search_tiktok_ads, so it falls just short of a 5.

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