View a media asset

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true). It reveals that content encoding varies by asset type (UTF-8 for text/report, base64 for images), includes revision history, and explains how parameters alter behavior (version, withContent). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second expands on options and parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (metadata, size, content with encoding details, revision history). It covers parameter behavior and edge cases (version, withContent). No omitted critical information for a read-only view tool.

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 50% (only name and version have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying 'withContent' behavior and the fact that version refers to an archived revision ID. However, 'project' remains undescribed in both schema and description, leaving a gap.

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 specifies the verb 'view' and the resource 'media asset', detailing what is returned (metadata, size, content, revision history). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_media, search_media, and edit_media by focusing on a single asset with full details and history.

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 explains when to use the tool (viewing a single asset with content and history) and provides explicit options: 'Pass a version id to view an archived revision' and 'set withContent:false for metadata + history only'. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but is clear enough.

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