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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'create' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., overwrite, duplicate handling), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One sentence of 12 words, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded for completeness without losing conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and 5 required parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return values, error handling, or constraints like path format, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100%. The description adds value by summarizing ext options and providing detailed templates for the content parameter, which goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 creates source content (HTML or JSON files) within an organization, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, get, delete.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and siblings, but no when-not or scenarios are provided. Adequate but missing explicit context.

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

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

The description mentions that the tool can delete html or json files, but lacks important behavioral details such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it triggers cascading effects, or what permissions are required. No annotations are present to compensate.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior (e.g., return value, success indicators, or data permanence). For a delete operation with four required parameters, the description is too sparse to fully guide the agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond stating the file types (html or json), which overlaps with the 'ext' parameter description. 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('source content'), specifying the file types (html or json). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like da_admin_list_sources (list) and da_admin_create_source (create).

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 the tool is used to delete source content, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., da_admin_list_sources for exploration, da_admin_create_source for creation). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, or any side effects. The term 'get' implies reading, but the description should explicitly state behavior.

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 concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure and fails to include important details. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without being longer.

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 no output schema and a simple get operation, the description does not explain the return format, error scenarios, or any constraints (e.g., file size). Incomplete for a tool with four required 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by mentioning html/json for ext, but does not add meaning for org, repo, or path beyond the schema.

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 gets source content from an organization and specifies the file types (html/json). It differentiates from sibling tools like da_admin_list_sources and da_admin_create_source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., da_media_get_index). No mention of prerequisites or 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.

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, permissions, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Single sentence of 11 words, no redundancy. Perfectly concise and front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple list tool without output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on potential pagination, ordering, or what 'source' constitutes, leaving room for improvement.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with brief descriptions. The description adds context ('inside a folder from an organization') but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns a list of sources from a folder in an organization, matching the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like da_admin_get_source, da_admin_create_source, and da_admin_delete_source.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool is a read-only check and specifies the output ('Returns initialization URL if not found'), but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what if site doesn't exist), side effects, or permission requirements. The behavior is minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences without any wasted words. The key action and output are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no output schema), and the description adequately explains its purpose and output. However, it could be more complete by describing the format of the initialization URL or noting what happens when the index does exist (e.g., returns success). Overall, sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (org, repo, path). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance semantics.

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 purpose: 'Check if media index exists on a site. Returns initialization URL if not found.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('media index on a site'), and the output condition distinguishes it from siblings like 'da_media_get_index' or 'da_media_search'.

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 the tool is used to verify index existence, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus similar tools (e.g., 'da_media_get_index') or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or output format. The description only states the function without additional safety or context details.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy, directly stating the tool's 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior. It only states the basic function, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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%, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. It mentions 'by URL or name,' which echoes the mediaUrl and mediaName parameters already documented in the schema.

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 finds documents using a media item by URL or name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like da_media_search (which searches for media items themselves) and da_media_get_index (lists all 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 when needing to locate documents referencing a specific media file, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives like da_media_search.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it states it's a read operation ('Get'), it does not disclose potential performance implications of retrieving the 'complete' media index (could be large), authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a safe and informed invocation.

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 concise at two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: it specifies the action, the resource, the scope ('for a site'), and the output ('all media references with timestamp'). No unnecessary fluff.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination, size limits, or error conditions. For a tool that returns a 'complete index,' additional context about potential payload size or timeouts would be valuable. Nonetheless, it is functionally adequate for a straightforward read operation.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (org, repo, path). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameter combinations or constraints.

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 action ('Get the complete media index') and the resource ('media.json for a site'), and specifies what is returned ('all media references with timestamp'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like da_media_search (which searches) and da_media_get_stats (which returns statistics) by implying this tool returns the full index.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings such as da_media_search or da_media_find_usage. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic output. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, has rate limits, or what permissions are needed. For a data retrieval tool, asserting read-only behavior would be valuable.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's action and key output elements. It is concise with no wasted 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?

Given the lack of output schema and complexity (multiple statistics), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the scope (e.g., per repo or global) or response format. While the listed outputs give some context, more details on behavior and return structure 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 input schema is fully described (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Optional path to site folder' but that is same as schema description. No additional parameter meaning.

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 retrieves media usage statistics and lists specific returned data: total count, breakdown by type, unused media, and alt text status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like da_media_check_status (individual status) and da_media_search (search).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, missing context such as 'use for aggregate overviews' or 'for detailed per-item status, use da_media_check_status' would improve.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the mechanism ('fetching the latest media.json') and implies a mutation (cache refresh), but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or impact on other operations. The transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the key action and usage context. Every part earns its place.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose and usage but does not explain return values or post-condition behavior. It is complete enough for a simple cache refresh, but could be more thorough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (org, path, repo). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, which meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 action ('Refresh the media data cache') and specifies the method ('by fetching the latest media.json'). It also provides usage context ('Use when media has been updated'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like da_media_check_status or da_media_get_index.

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 usage guidance ('Use when media has been updated'), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for typical use cases, but lacks exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'search and filter' without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about side effects or constraints.

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 efficiently lists filter criteria. It is front-loaded with the action ('Search and filter media items') and includes the most relevant filtering dimensions. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points or more detail on required parameters).

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 has 9 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description lacks important context such as mandatory parameters (org/repo), expected output, or pagination. It does not clarify that org and repo are always required, nor does it explain the relationship between filters (e.g., additive vs exclusive). This leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, providing high coverage (100%). The description merely summarizes the filter options without adding new meaning or context beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.

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 searches and filters media items, listing key filter criteria (type, document, name, etc.). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on search/filter, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like da_media_get_index or da_media_find_usage.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., org and repo needed), or scenarios where sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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