duskly_list_prohibited_alterationsEdits that are prohibited outright in one or more markets and are never made acceptable by adding a disclosure.
Use this when someone asks to remove, conceal or change something in a property photo and you need to know whether a label would make it acceptable. For these, it does not.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds that it returns a list of prohibited edits, which is useful context, but it doesn't detail the output structure or any edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate for the incremental behavioral context provided.
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 two sentences long, with the core definition in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every sentence carries essential information, and it is front-loaded with the most important fact (what the tool lists). No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already provided, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns (a list of prohibited alterations) and when to call it. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and fully covers the parameter surface. The description acknowledges this by not referencing any inputs. According to the calibration baseline for 0-parameter tools, a 4 is justified.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists prohibited alterations that cannot be made acceptable by disclosure. It also clarifies the context by tying it to property photo edits and the 'label' concept. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like duskly_list_edits or duskly_classify_edit.
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 the tool: when someone asks about removing, concealing, or changing something and you need to know if a disclosure would make it acceptable. It lacks an explicit mention of alternatives, but the phrase 'For these, it does not' implies that other edits may be acceptable with disclosure, effectively routing the agent to this tool only for the prohibited set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.