List stock media

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a passive read of built-in assets but says nothing about permissions, whether the catalog is static or fetched live, whether results are paginated, or what fields each asset exposes for use with the sibling tools.

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?

A single tight sentence fragment with the resource scope front-loaded and the consumer tools at the end. It earns its length, though the fragmentary phrasing without an explicit verb costs a little clarity.

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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum indicate that the return value is a catalog of identifiers/names usable with bar_image and friends. That link is only vaguely implied, leaving the agent guessing about what it gets back.

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 0%, and the single 'kind' parameter is an enum with three values. The description enumerates 'Images, animations and sounds', which maps onto those enum members and implies the parameter filters the catalog by media type, but it never says the filter is optional or what happens when kind is omitted (full catalog).

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 names the concrete resource set ('Images, animations and sounds built into the Bar') and points at the three sibling tools the results feed (bar_image, bar_animation, bar_sound), so it is distinguishable from those siblings. The verb is only implied by the title 'List stock media' rather than stated in the description itself.

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 trailing 'for bar_image, bar_animation and bar_sound' hints that this is a discovery step preceding those display tools, but it never states 'call this first to get asset identifiers' or any when-not condition. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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