get_v1_media_by_id

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits. The bare minimum 'Get media object' provides no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the obvious.

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 extremely short—one line—but it is not a tautology. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity and fails to provide essential details, making it minimally adequate but not 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, potential errors, or how this tool fits among the numerous sibling media retrieval tools, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not elaborate on what the ID represents, its format, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly set the parameter.

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 'Get media object', clearly indicating the verb-retrieve and resource-media. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_v1_media_by_code or get_v1_media_by_url, which also retrieve media objects but by different identifiers.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many other media retrieval tools. No context on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.