List media files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope and capability context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination semantics, or any API-specific behaviors beyond what the parameter names suggest.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core resource first and then the relevant capabilities, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 list operation with no required parameters, the description is mostly sufficient: schema defaults, enums, and the list-focused wording fill in most invocation needs. The main gap is explicit sorting/return-value detail, but this is a minor omission given the self-explanatory 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 low at 43%, and the description partially compensates by framing limit/offset as 'pagination', query as 'search', and type as a 'type filter'. However, it omits sorting behavior for sortBy/sortOrder and leaves several parameter semantics primarily to inference from names and defaults.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files/folders in the location's Media Library'), and adds the key capabilities of pagination, search, and type filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling media tools like ghl_upload_media_by_url and ghl_delete_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 gives clear context: use this when enumerating files or folders in the location's Media Library. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but there is no competing media-list sibling, so the intent is unambiguous.

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