list_wallpapers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are confined to the current theme directory, but says nothing about return format, ordering, or how empty themes are handled.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; there is no filler and nothing an agent must scan past to find the action.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is enumerated and where. It could go one step further and clarify the relationship to list_theme_wallpapers, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit 'current theme' input, which the schema does not express. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all wallpaper files') plus a scoping qualifier ('in the current theme directory'), so an agent knows exactly what is enumerated. It is not fully differentiated from the nearby list_theme_wallpapers or get_wallpaper siblings, which leaves a small ambiguity about scope overlap.

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 scope phrase 'current theme directory' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies (inspecting the active theme's wallpaper pool), but there is no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative for enumerating wallpapers of a different theme.

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