Get Community Media

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses the API key requirement, that each call makes exactly one TweetAPI request costing about 1 unit, that per-result cost estimates are returned, and that the operation is paginated. That is substantive operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields alone.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by cost and pagination mechanics; nothing is padded. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence slightly duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation but serves as a quick safety cue.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return shape, the description only needed to cover access, cost, and paging — and it covers all three, including the exact field to pass for the next page. Nothing required for a correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters (cursor, communityId, responseFormat) are already fully documented in the schema, including the link format and the cursor provenance. The description reinforces cursor paging but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already states, 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 and resource plus a scope qualifier: 'Fetch one page of posts with photos or videos from a community, as on its Media tab.' The media-type restriction and community scoping make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like tweetapi_community_tweets or tweetapi_user_photos without opening any schema.

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 'Media tab' framing plus the explicit 'by community ID or community link' gives clear context for when this is the right call. It does not, however, name the alternative to use when the agent wants text-only community posts (e.g. tweetapi_community_tweets), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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