neurover_media_access

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. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (name, size, resolution, links), but says nothing about auth requirements, per-account scoping, or behavior when the asset is missing.

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 front-loaded sentence with the key identifier first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage context.

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 no output schema, the description does partially cover return content, which is the main gap-filler. However, for a three-parameter tool where two parameters are undocumented anywhere, and with no error or auth behavior described, the definition is only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains mediaAssetId as the single-file identifier, but the account and workflowId parameters are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description — two of three parameters are undocumented.

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-resource pair: fetch details of a single media library file identified by mediaAssetId, and enumerates the fields returned (name, size, resolution, links). That implicitly separates it from the listing-style sibling neurover_media, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as neurover_media (list) or neurover_download_media, and no stated prerequisites like account or workflow scoping. The only guidance is the implicit 'one file by id' framing.

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