get_config_mediamanagement_by_id

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 well covered. The description adds the GET method and path but no additional behavioral context such as authentication, error behavior, or response details. There is no contradiction with 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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: the first line states the operation clearly, then the endpoint and single argument are documented without filler. Every line contributes useful information.

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 the tool's low complexity, one required parameter, output schema availability, and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete for invoking the tool correctly. It lacks only explicit sibling differentiation and potential error context, which are not essential for a simple read-by-id endpoint.

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 must compensate. It identifies id as a path parameter and places it in the URL, adding meaning beyond the bare integer property in the input schema. It does not explain the full domain of valid IDs, but for a single-config GET this is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Read MediaManagementConfig.' The GET /api/v3/config/mediamanagement/{id} path makes clear this retrieves a single config by ID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list_config_mediamanagement, so it stops short of perfect sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_config_mediamanagement for fetching all configs or update_config_mediamanagement_by_id for modifications. The endpoint and parameter indirectly imply single-item retrieval, but no selection criteria or exclusions are given.

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