neurover_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds that results carry mediaAssetId for reuse, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches. Adequate but thin beyond 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?

A single compact sentence with the search intent front-loaded and the motivation appended after the dash. No filler, though the dashes-and-parenthetical construction packs three ideas into one clause and the return-value hint could be clearer.

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 read-only lookup with 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent and the key output field but omits pagination, account scoping and workflow filtering. An agent could call it with kind alone, but would likely misuse or ignore half the parameters.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries real weight and only partially discharges it: 'по типу и имени' maps to kind and query, and the mention of mediaAssetId hints at what is returned. The remaining parameters — limit, account, beforeId, workflowId — are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, including the paging cursor beforeId and the workflow scoping of workflowId.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Найти файлы в медиатеке'), names the two filter dimensions (type and name), and says what it returns (mediaAssetId). It also frames the payoff (reusing an already-uploaded image), which separates it from upload-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied through the stated goal of avoiding a re-upload, which tells an agent roughly when to reach for it. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against close siblings such as neurover_ensure_media, neurover_media_access or neurover_download_media, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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