list_media

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

Annotations already communicate a safe, read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the raw endpoint: no pagination limits, no response behavior, no required authentication or rate-limit caveats. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no extra transparency.

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 short and superficially structured, but every parameter line is redundant filler that adds no informative value. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; a genuinely concise description would pack pagination/filter semantics into a few words.

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 output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but the description still lacks essential invocation knowledge: what take/skip/filter/sort do, whether media includes movies, TV, or both, and how this endpoint relates to other list/retrieve tools. Given four parameters and a large sibling set, this is not complete enough for an agent to select or call it confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had to explain the four parameters. It merely repeats each parameter name and labels it 'Query parameter,' giving an agent no idea what take, skip, filter, or sort mean, what formats are expected, or how they interact. This is effectively non-documentation.

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 verb, resource, and HTTP endpoint ('Get media. GET /api/v1/media'), so an agent can see it is a read operation on a media collection. However, it never clarifies what 'media' means, that it returns a list/collection, or how it differs from related tools like get_media_by_media_id_watch_data or list_discover_movies, leaving the purpose vague.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool instead of any of the many sibling list_* tools. The description does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent must rely on the tool name alone.

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