aiornot_analyze_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns confidence scores, which is helpful, but it does not disclose that this performs network calls to an external API, sends potentially sensitive file content, may have rate limits, or can fail/timeout. Key mutation-like side effects (external data transmission) are absent.

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 unnecessary words, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It loses one point because it is almost too terse, omitting contextual details that could be woven in without adding bulk, such as the need for file_path or text depending on media_type.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the basic purpose but not the return format, error behavior, dependency on external API, or the relationship between media_type and required inputs (file_path vs. text). An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand those constraints, but schema does not cover operational or outcome context, leaving a significant gap.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the documentation burden adequately.

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 the specific verb 'Analyze' and names the exact resource: image, video, audio (music/voice), or text via the AI or Not API. It also states the output (confidence scores), making the tool's function clear and distinguishable from the sibling 'aiornot_is_live'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that one would use this for analyzing media, the description does not mention the sibling tool or any non-use cases. The condition 'or text' is the only hint of differentiation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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