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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the ordering ('newest first'), the nature of the returned data ('Each asset includes a publicUrl'), and the scope ('the user has uploaded'). These add meaningful context beyond a simple list call, though it does not discuss error cases or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the core function and ordering, noting the publicUrl usefulness, and giving a concrete use case with optional filters. There is no filler or redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (media with publicUrl), how it can be used with other tools, and the available filters. It sufficiently informs the agent about how to invoke it for finding previously uploaded files. It doesn't mention the array format explicitly, but 'List' implies it.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description mentions kind, mime, and query filters, but these repeat what the schema already provides. It does not add significant new semantics beyond the structured parameter definitions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List media (images/videos) the user has uploaded to their SocialClaw library, newest first.' It identifies a specific verb (list), resource (media assets), and scope (user's library). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning publicUrl and its use in validate_schedule/apply_schedule, which is unique to asset handling.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to find a previously uploaded file (e.g. from the dashboard) to post.' It also explains how the output integrates with other tools ('usable directly as media_link in validate_schedule/apply_schedule'). No explicit exclusions are given, but the context clearly differentiates it from listing accounts or posts.

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