list_media_grabbers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and filter behavior but doesn't mention response framing, pagination, or whether all grabbers are returned when protocol is omitted; this is acceptable given annotations and output 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?

Three short blocks with no filler: purpose sentence, endpoint, and parameter doc. Front-loaded and every line earns its place.

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 read-only list with one optional parameter and an output schema, the definition covers the endpoint and the only behavior-affecting input. It is slightly thin on scope (e.g., all grabbers returned by default) and sibling distinction, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the only parameter: protocol is explained as a filter ('Only return grabbers providing this protocol'). It doesn't enumerate valid protocol values, but with no enums available this is still meaningful.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available grabbers') with the REST path. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_media_grabbers_devices or list_media_providers.

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 gives the optional protocol filter meaning, implying the obvious use case of listing grabbers, but it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling list tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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