get_library_people_by_person_id_media

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the endpoint and parameter note, such as pagination, result shape, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, the exact endpoint, and the key parameter clarification. Every line earns its place, with no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and a provided output schema, the description is largely complete: it gives the endpoint, the parameter format, and the two accepted identifier forms. The only notable gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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 carries the full burden for explaining 'person_id'. It does so thoroughly: the parameter can be either the PMS tag 'id' or the actor's 'tagKey', and it clarifies that 'tagKey' is the hex portion of the plex guid. This is genuinely useful semantic information beyond the raw string type in the schema.

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 states a specific operation—'Get media for a person'—and reinforces it with the exact endpoint path 'GET /library/people/{personId}/media'. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling 'get_library_people_by_person_id', but the resource difference ('media' vs 'person') is clear enough from name and path.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling library tools, especially 'get_library_people_by_person_id'. The description focuses on the parameter format but does not state intended scenarios, prerequisites, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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