holiday-photo-plus-2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a hosted URL and that the intended action is an HTML artifact. It does not detail error handling or invalid IDs, but the prerequisite step mitigates that. Overall, it is transparent about the read-only display nature.

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 five sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the tool's function, post-call action, what to avoid, and prerequisite. Important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and a sibling, the description is complete. It covers the full workflow: prerequisite, action, and expected artifact. No output schema is needed as the description explains the follow-up step.

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 already covers the single parameter with an example and description. The description adds context by linking to 'list_photos' for valid IDs, which is helpful but not essential. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate with minimal added value.

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 verb 'display', the resource 'holiday photo', and the method 'creating an HTML artifact'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_photos' by implying that 'get_photo' is for viewing a specific photo after listing.

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 instructs to use 'list_photos' first to discover valid IDs, mandates creating an HTML artifact after calling this tool, and warns against writing prose or captions. This provides clear when-to-use and what-not-to-do guidance.

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, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists photos, but omits traits like pagination, rate limits, ordering, side effects, or whether it returns all photos at once. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for safe 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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless list tool, the description covers the basic purpose and output. However, it lacks context on scope ('every available' may be misleading without privacy notes), ordering, or any limitations. The absence of output schema and annotations increases the burden, which the description only partially meets.

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 zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning; however, it does add value by specifying the output content (ID and description) beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that by clarifying what the list contains.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'every available holiday photo', and the output elements 'ID and description'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_photo' which presumably returns a single photo, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 the sibling 'get_photo' or any other contextual cues. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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