sb_media_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it is a library and supports search/filter/pagination, but it doesn't describe the return format, default pagination limits, or any side effects (none expected). Since annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that starts with the core purpose ('The site's media library'), then provides usage guidance and parameter hints. It is concise and front-loaded, though the phrase 'Reuse an image before adding another' is more of a policy than a functional description, which is acceptable.

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 listing tool with all optional parameters, the description covers the main usage patterns. However, it doesn't explain the return value, the role of site_id, or default pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what is returned would improve completeness.

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?

The schema only documents 'media_type' (with an example). The description covers 'search' (search by name), 'media_type' (filter by type), and 'limit'/'offset' (page with limit/offset). It does not mention 'site_id', which remains undocumented. Given low schema coverage (20%), the description compensates well for most parameters but misses site_id.

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 identifies this as the site's media library and lists operations (search, filter, page) that imply a listing/retrieval tool. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools such as sb_page_list, but the name 'sb_media_list' clarifies the action.

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 instruction to 'reuse an image before adding another' clearly indicates when to use this tool: to find existing media before uploading new ones. It also outlines usage patterns (search by name, filter by type, page with limit/offset). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like sb_media_upload or state when not to use it.

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