Search media assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds that it returns 'matching assets with metadata'. This is consistent but does not elaborate on pagination, performance, or other behavioral traits. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all key information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every part adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter meanings. It could mention the return format or pagination, but the core functionality is well-addressed.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'query' parameter as free-text matched across specific fields, 'kind' as an enum (image/report/other), and 'tag' as exact match. It does not explain 'project' beyond it being required, but the schema shows its type. Overall, it adds significant meaning.

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 specifies the verb 'Search/filter', the resource 'project's media gallery', and the filtering criteria (kind, exact tag, free-text query). It also explains what fields are searched (name, title, tags, generation prompt) and the output (matching assets with metadata), which distinguishes it from siblings 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 when to use this tool: when you need to search or filter media assets by specific criteria. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear. A brief note about alternatives (e.g., 'for a simpler list, use list_media') would improve it.

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