List media assets

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only'. It adds transparency by specifying the empty-folder case ('returns an empty gallery if the project has no media/ folder yet'). No contradictions. The description adds value beyond 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses 5 sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value, listing return fields and usage hints efficiently.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, empty-handling behavior, filtering, and read-only nature. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are acceptable omissions for a simple list 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 coverage is 50% (only 'kind' has a description). The description adds meaning for 'project' by implying it refers to a project and restates the 'kind' filter. It does not fully specify the format of 'project' (e.g., ID or name), so partial compensation.

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 tool lists a project's media gallery, specifying the resource (media/ folder), verb (list), and scope (per project). It details what each asset carries, distinguishing it from siblings like get_media or search_media by focusing on listing all assets in a gallery.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to list media assets in a project) and notes optional filtering by kind. It also hints at behavior when the folder is empty, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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