Get Media Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that the media must be processed, which is not captured by annotations. This is valuable context beyond what annotations provide, but no further traits like auth needs or rate limits are mentioned.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states what the tool returns; the second provides usage prerequisites and an alternative. Efficient and well-structured.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description adequately covers prerequisites, distinguishes from a sibling, and lists sample outputs. No major gaps given the tool's complexity and available annotations/schema.

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 100% (parameter 'mediaId' has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema 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 uses specific verbs ('Retrieve') and resources ('AI-generated insights for a processed media file'), listing concrete insight types. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'ask_magic_prompt', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite ('media must be in processed state' and directs to 'get_media_status' for checking) and provides a clear alternative for custom questions ('use ask_magic_prompt instead'). This provides strong usage guidance.

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