get_media_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that URL types return accessible URLs, while note types (media_id starting with note_) automatically fetch and return note_content as plain text. This adds meaningful behavioral detail, though it does not cover edge cases or errors.

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?

Two focused sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds necessary detail; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the expected behavior and output format across media types. It covers the source of the parameter and the conditional return values, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema only describes media_id as '媒体条目 ID.' The description enriches this by explaining where the ID comes from (ask_knowledge_base references) and that the note_ prefix changes behavior. This adds real semantic value despite the schema's 100% coverage.

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 retrieves original content or download links for knowledge base entries. It specifies the input source (media_id from ask_knowledge_base references) and differentiates behavior by media type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_note_content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: pass media_id obtained from ask_knowledge_base's references field. It describes behavior for different media types but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls 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.