get_v1_user_medias_chunk

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

No annotations provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied by GET but not stated), pagination limits, or error conditions. The term 'chunk' is vague without details on ordering or cursor usage.

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?

Description is short with two sentences. The first sentence repeats the HTTP method and endpoint in brackets, which could be omitted. Overall, it is concise but front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 use of cursor-based pagination and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to obtain the initial cursor, how to iterate, or what information is returned. With many sibling tools, more contextual guidance is needed.

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%. The description does not explain the 'user_id' or 'end_cursor' parameters beyond the cursor mention in the second sentence. The parameter titles in the schema provide some meaning, but the description adds no additional value.

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 it gets 'part of user medias with cursor', clearly indicating a paginated retrieval. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning cursor-based chunk retrieval, but could be more explicit about the resource and pagination semantics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_gql_user_medias or get_v1_user_medias_pinned. The description does not specify prerequisites or filtering behavior.

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