list_file_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention whether pagination or sorting applies, whether deleted or hidden media objects are included, or what the return structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequately complete for a basic list operation. It states the essential purpose, and while it does not detail return values or edge cases, the simplicity of the operation makes this acceptable.

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 input schema for fileId has 100% coverage with a simple 'File ID' description, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'List all media objects in a file' uses a specific verb ('list'), identifies the resource ('media objects'), and scopes it to a file. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files and list_pages, which target different resource types.

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 purpose is so explicit that the usage context is implied: call this when you need to retrieve media objects within a specific file. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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