get_article_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes output fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid URL), or whether it is read-only. The name suggests a read operation, but safety information is missing.

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 well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is concise without superfluous words. While dense, it earns its place by conveying the tool's purpose and output.

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 5 parameters, pagination, and no output schema, the description covers the output fields but omits details on pagination behavior, optional parameter effects, and return structure. The sibling list provides context but the description does not leverage it to clarify when to use this tool. Incomplete for a paginated media retrieval tool.

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 40% (only 2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for the url parameter by implying it is a WOL article, but does not explain parameters page, format, page_size, or langwritten. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate and leaves parameter usage unclear.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'paginated images from one WOL article', and lists the specific data fields returned (full-size and thumbnail URLs, captions, alt text, dimensions, paragraph references, exact source links). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_wol_media (searching media) and get_article_full (full article text).

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 by stating 'from one WOL article' (requires a specific article URL), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_wol_media or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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