List Captions by Media

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world behavior, but the description adds real value on top: the specific permission ('Read all folder and media data') and the delegated-token behavior. It still omits pagination and return-format behavior, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single tight sentence. The permission block is verbose (code fences, multi-line scope text) but the information is relevant to correctly invoking the tool, so it earns most of its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could helpfully state what a caption record contains or whether results paginate, and it does neither. Authorization requirements are well covered, but the return-side picture is incomplete.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself, including the note that 'account' selects credentials rather than a remote account ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) plus resource (captions) scoped to 'belonging to a specific media', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_all_captions. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the alternative it is not, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria. With siblings like list_all_captions, get_captions, and find_caption_matches, an agent gets no help deciding which one to invoke; only the required media_hashed_id implies a per-media scope.

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