get_media

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so adequately: 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation, and the mention of download URLs adds useful output behavior. It does not discuss access restrictions or URL expiry, but the core side-effect-free behavior is transparent.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action and expected output are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. This is an appropriate size for a simple single-parameter getter.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return payload. The main missing piece is usage-context guidance, but the overall complexity is low enough that the definition is nearly complete.

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 adds useful domain context by identifying the resource as uploaded media (images, banners), which clarifies what media_id refers to. However, it never explicitly explains that media_id is the identifier of the media to retrieve or describes any format constraints.

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 a specific verb, 'Retrieve', names the resource ('uploaded media'), and specifies the output ('details and download URLs'). It also adds media-type scope ('images, banners'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_media_upload_instructions.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusions are stated. The description says what the tool does but not the context in which an agent should choose it.

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