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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses that image bytes are not returned and that results include a numbered preview sheet, return keys, asset ids, pixel sizes, and visible_box for cut-outs. It also clarifies that omitting filters lists collections, which is behavior not captured by the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded: it starts with what is returned and how results are ordered, then adds return-value details, alternatives, and placement guidance. Every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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 rich annotations, complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description still provides enough return-value and behavioral detail for correct invocation. It covers discovery, filtering, collection lookup, preview behavior, and downstream placement.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents limit, search, and collection. The description adds useful semantic context for search and collection, including when a collection name should be used for user requests like "the Diwali photos," though it does not add much for limit beyond the schema's default.

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 opens with a specific resource and default ordering: workspace images, newest first, with optional file-name or collection filters and a numbered preview sheet. It also clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from upload_images and create_layers, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for images already in the workspace and to use upload_images for the user's own files. It further explains when to consult collection names and how to place a found image with create_layers, covering both selection context and follow-up action.

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