View a media asset

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: content encoding (UTF-8 vs base64), revision history with prompts, and the effect of parameters. No contradictions 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 concise but packs many details into one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly dense but not verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists what is returned (metadata, size, content, revision history). For a read-only view tool, this is sufficient. Parameters are covered adequately.

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?

The description explains version and withContent parameters beyond their schema definitions, and clarifies how content type depends on asset type. Schema coverage is 50%, but the description compensates well for the undocumented project parameter and adds context.

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 clearly states the verb 'view' and the resource 'media asset', specifying what is returned: metadata, size, content (with encoding details), and revision history. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_media (which lists all) and edit_media (which modifies).

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 gives guidance on passing a version id and setting withContent:false, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions.

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