Media Library List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether results are paginated, ordered, permission-gated, or capped. For a list tool with page_limit/page_offset parameters, the absence of any behavioral context is a serious gap.

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?

It is a single sentence, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — one sentence that conveys essentially nothing beyond the tool name earns no credit for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool has three wholly undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no stated scope or filtering behavior. The description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for three parameters. The free-form 'filters' object in particular needs the description to explain accepted keys, and page_limit/page_offset defaults and semantics are likewise unexplained. The description mentions no parameters at all.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim — 'list media library items' vs. media_library_list — adding no scope, no filtering detail, and no distinction from siblings such as media_type_list or sync_media_files. It names a verb and resource but does nothing beyond the title.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be chosen over media_type_list, search_api_index_list, or any other listing tool.

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