strapi_list_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the endpoint, omitting what the response contains, pagination defaults, or any read-only guarantees. This leaves critical execution details unspecified.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, efficiently conveying the primary purpose in the fewest words.

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 or annotations, the description should explain return format, pagination, and relationship to other media tools. It only provides the endpoint and basic action, leaving the agent underinformed for robust invocation.

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 single queryJson parameter is fully described in the schema with an example, giving it 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool lists Strapi Media Library files using the /api/upload/files endpoint. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_media or upload_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 implies usage for listing media files but does not explicitly contrast with get_media for individual files or provide scenarios where this tool is preferred. It lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance, relying on the tool name and endpoint to convey context.

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