Search media assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'returns matching assets' is consistent and adds little beyond that. The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result limits, but it does not contradict the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words. However, slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters explicitly) could improve readability.

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 vaguely mentions 'returns matching assets with metadata' but provides no details on pagination, limits, or error behavior. For a search tool, this leaves some gaps, but the overall functionality is communicated.

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 adds context beyond the schema by explaining how parameters are used ('by kind, by exact tag, and/or a free-text query'), but the project parameter is only implied via 'a project's media gallery'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but omits details like parameter formats or defaults.

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's purpose: 'Search/filter a project's media gallery by kind, by exact tag, and/or a free-text query... Returns matching assets with metadata.' It specifies the resource (media gallery) and the operations (search/filter), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_media'.

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 implies usage for searching/filtering media but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_media' or 'get_media'. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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