Lightroom Classic MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.4.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as apply_develop_preset vs. apply_develop_settings, but some overlap exists, like list_develop_presets and list_lightroom_presets, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their differences, and the majority are well-defined for specific actions.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern, such as add_keywords, apply_develop_preset, and get_active_photo. There are no deviations in style, making it easy to predict and understand tool functions across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5With 59 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. This many tools suggests poor scoping, as many functions could be consolidated or grouped, leading to potential confusion and inefficiency.
Completeness5/5The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Lightroom Classic operations, including photo editing, metadata management, collections, masks, and undo/redo functionality. There are no obvious gaps, and it supports full CRUD and lifecycle management for the domain.
Average 3.2/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool applies a preset with overrides but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how it affects the system, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though it's under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in purpose, parameter meaning, and behavioral context. The output schema helps but doesn't compensate for the missing description details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional parameter overrides' which hints at the 'overrides' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning of 'preset', 'local_ids', 'strict', 'clamp', or 'history_name'. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('apply') and resource ('named preset'), but is vague about what 'apply' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_develop_settings' or 'apply_lightroom_preset'. It mentions 'optional parameter overrides' which adds some specificity but doesn't clarify the domain or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'apply_develop_settings' or 'apply_lightroom_preset'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied only through the tool name and brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a selection action but doesn't explain the effects (e.g., whether this changes the active tool in Lightroom, if it's reversible, or what permissions are needed). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and options. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by clarifying the context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks depth for effective use, especially compared to sibling tools in a Lightroom context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists possible values for the 'tool' parameter (brush, graduated-filter, radial-filter, range-mask), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't explain what these tools do or how to choose between them, providing only partial semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Select a mask tool') and lists the available options, which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'mask tool' means in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'select_mask' or 'create_ai_mask', making it somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'select_mask' or 'create_ai_mask'. The description merely lists options without context for selection, offering no usage instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is a removal but doesn't disclose if this is destructive, reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'from selected photos or local_ids' hints at scope but lacks detail on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details like tool context or behavioral traits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a mutation tool with potential side effects, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidance. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address core aspects like what 'selected photos' means or how removal affects the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds little. It mentions 'keywords' and 'local_ids' by name but doesn't explain what 'keywords' are (e.g., tags, metadata), what 'local_ids' refer to, or the relationship between parameters. The description fails to clarify semantics beyond the schema's structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('keywords') with scope ('from selected photos or local_ids'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'add_keywords' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it specify what 'selected photos' means in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'add_keywords' is a clear sibling, the description doesn't mention it or explain prerequisites like how photos become 'selected'. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a mutation, requires specific photo states, has side effects, or interacts with other settings. It's minimal and lacks critical context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage, behavioral, and parameter details needed for effective tool selection and invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter name 'bokeh'. It doesn't explain what values are acceptable, format, or effects, failing to compensate for the low coverage and leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the lens blur bokeh shape' clearly states the action (set) and target (lens blur bokeh shape), but it's vague about what 'bokeh shape' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_lens_blur_depth_viz' or other lens-related operations. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other lens blur or develop parameter tools in the sibling list. The description implies usage for setting bokeh shape but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Apply') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it modifies photo settings, requires specific permissions, affects undo/redo states, or has side effects like creating virtual copies. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters (one undocumented), the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidance. Although an output schema exists, the description doesn't address critical aspects like what 'Apply' entails or how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description only mentions 'UUID' for 'preset_uuid', adding minimal context. It doesn't explain 'local_ids' at all—whether it's for targeting specific photos, handling arrays, or defaulting to null. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply') and target resource ('Lightroom develop preset by its UUID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'apply_develop_settings', which appear to serve similar functions in the Lightroom context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'apply_develop_settings'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a photo must be selected or if the preset must be available locally.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the original photos, whether the operation is reversible, or what the virtual copies actually are. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and rich sibling tools (including other creation operations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what virtual copies are, how they differ from other photo derivatives, what the output contains, or the operational context needed. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'local_ids' but doesn't explain what they are, how to obtain them, or what happens when they're null (which is the default). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create virtual copies') and the target resource ('selected photos or specific local_ids'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'create_snapshot' or 'apply_snapshot' that might also create derivative versions of photos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing selected photos first), nor does it explain what 'virtual copies' are compared to other operations like snapshots or presets available in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a snapshot, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or provides confirmation feedback. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context, relying too heavily on the output schema to compensate, which isn't sufficient for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'snapshot_id', ignoring the second parameter 'local_ids' entirely. No additional meaning is provided for either parameter, such as format examples or how 'local_ids' relates to the deletion process, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('a develop snapshot by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_collection', but the resource specificity ('develop snapshot') provides adequate clarity for the given context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_snapshot' or 'list_snapshots' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing snapshots but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing snapshots with a parameter), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. The output schema helps, but the description should add more value beyond what structured data provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('local_ids') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'local_ids' are, how they relate to snapshots, or when to use them (e.g., for filtering). With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('develop snapshots'), with context about scope ('for the active photo'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_snapshot' and 'delete_snapshot' by focusing on listing. However, it doesn't specify what 'develop snapshots' are or how they differ from other snapshot types, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active photo), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_collections' or 'list_develop_presets'. Usage is implied only by the phrase 'for the active photo', but this is insufficient for clear decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'partial update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified parameters in the group, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters like 'group', 'values', 'local_ids', 'strict', 'clamp', and 'history_name' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'develop parameter group' which hints at the 'group' parameter, but provides no explanation of what 'values' should contain, what 'clamp' or 'strict' do, or the purpose of 'local_ids' and 'history_name'. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply a partial update') and the target ('one develop parameter group'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_develop_param' or 'apply_develop_settings', which appear to be related operations on develop parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools related to develop operations (e.g., 'set_develop_param', 'apply_develop_settings', 'apply_develop_preset'), there's no indication of when this partial update to a group is preferred over other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add keywords' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if keywords already exist, whether the operation is reversible, or any rate limits. The hierarchical format mention is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and a key feature (hierarchical format). There's zero wasted language, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral implications for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions hierarchical format support ('A > B > C'), which provides some context for the 'keywords' parameter format. However, it doesn't explain what 'local_ids' represents, its relationship to 'keywords', or provide any examples of valid keyword hierarchies. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this is inadequate compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add keywords') and specifies the resource being modified. It also mentions the hierarchical format support, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_keywords' beyond the obvious verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or when not to use it. The existence of 'remove_keywords' as a sibling tool suggests there should be some differentiation guidance, but none is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'apply' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify if this is destructive, reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), requires specific permissions, or affects the current photo state. More context on the tool's behavior is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context needed for a mutation tool in a complex environment like Lightroom.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions 'by its ID' which hints at 'snapshot_id', but doesn't explain what 'local_ids' does or how parameters interact. The description fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('apply') and target resource ('develop snapshot by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'apply_develop_settings', which also apply adjustments to photos in Lightroom.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'apply_develop_settings', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing snapshot from 'create_snapshot'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'create' implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It lacks details like if the snapshot is persistent, reversible via 'undo', or how it interacts with 'active photo' state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'name' should be (e.g., format, uniqueness), what 'local_ids' refers to (e.g., specific photo adjustments), or their impact. With 2 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('named develop snapshot'), and specifies the target ('for the active photo'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_snapshot' or 'list_snapshots' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_virtual_copy', which might be a related creation operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active photo), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'create_virtual_copy' or 'apply_snapshot'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and poor parameter documentation, it lacks depth for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings like 'get_develop_settings'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'one named develop group', which hints at the 'group' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'local_ids' parameter at all. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('settings for one named develop group'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_develop_settings' or 'list_develop_groups', which limits its differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the group name from 'list_develop_groups', or when to use this over 'get_develop_settings' for broader settings retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at conditional behavior ('when Lightroom can report it'), suggesting it may fail or return limited data, but doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'slider range' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external software.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a brief qualifier, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral context, but the presence of an output schema and low complexity keeps it from being severely inadequate. It's minimal but not entirely useless.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'parameter' but doesn't explain what values are valid (e.g., from 'list_develop_parameters'), format, or examples. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's basic parameter name, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get slider range') and resource ('for a develop parameter'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_develop_param_ranges' or 'list_develop_parameters', which appear related, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with the parenthetical '(when Lightroom can report it)', implying usage depends on Lightroom's capability, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_develop_param_ranges' or prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool removes photos from a collection, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify whether this action is reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), what permissions are required, or how errors are handled (e.g., if local_ids don't exist). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove') and specifies the target clearly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context. For a mutation tool with two parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'collection_id' and 'local_ids' implicitly but doesn't explain their semantics—for example, what a 'local_id' represents, whether 'local_ids' can be empty, or how the tool behaves if 'local_ids' is null. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names visible in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('selected photos (or specific local_ids) from a collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_to_collection' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what type of collection or system this operates on, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection), exclusions, or related tools like 'delete_collection' (which might delete the entire collection rather than remove items from it). The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are invalid. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool with 6 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'parameter' and 'value' (the required parameters) and implies 'local_ids' through 'selected photos or local_ids', but doesn't explain 'strict', 'clamp', or 'history_name' at all. This leaves 3 of 6 parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the target ('a single develop parameter'), and the scope ('across selected photos or local_ids'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'set_develop_group' or 'apply_develop_settings', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'set_develop_group' or 'apply_develop_settings'. It mentions the scope ('selected photos or local_ids') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action ('Set') implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), rate limits, or what happens if 'local_ids' is null. It also doesn't describe the output format despite having an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical rating range constraint. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and rating range, but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter details. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context is needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter semantics. It mentions the 'rating' range (0..5) which isn't in the schema, but doesn't explain 'local_ids' (e.g., what they refer to, default behavior when null). With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('Lightroom star rating') with the specific range constraint (0..5). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_label' or 'set_pick_status' by focusing on star ratings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all rating-related tools since there aren't any direct rating siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing selected photos), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'set_label' or 'set_pick_status' for metadata updates. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'advanced/debug use,' hinting at potential risks or complexity, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies data), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and context. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (advanced/debug tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for safe invocation despite the output schema covering return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not explaining what 'command' or 'params' represent, their formats, or examples. With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Send[s] a raw command to the plugin' which clarifies the action (send) and target (plugin), but it's vague about what 'raw command' entails or what plugin it refers to. It distinguishes from siblings by being for 'advanced/debug use,' but lacks specificity on the resource or exact function compared to other tools like 'lightroom_list_commands' or 'lightroom_ping.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states this is for 'advanced/debug use,' providing clear context on when to use it (for debugging or advanced operations) and implying it's not for routine tasks. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as more specific tools like 'apply_develop_settings' for standard operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'selected photos' as an alternative input mode, hinting at UI context dependency, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'remove_from_collection'. More context on mutation effects is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately clarifies the two input options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter roles but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. The output schema may mitigate some gaps, but more context is needed for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains that 'local_ids' can be specific IDs or omitted for 'selected photos', adding meaning beyond the schema's technical definition. However, it doesn't clarify 'collection_id' semantics (e.g., what constitutes a valid ID) or the relationship between the two parameters, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and target resources ('selected photos' or 'specific local_ids to a collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes between two input modes (selected photos vs. specific IDs), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'remove_from_collection' beyond the verb contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_collection' or 'remove_from_collection'. The description implies usage for adding photos to existing collections but doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection_id) or exclusions (e.g., what happens if photos are already in the collection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this 'adjusts' photos, implying a mutation, but doesn't specify whether changes are destructive, reversible (via undo), require specific permissions, or have side effects. It also doesn't mention what 'Auto Tone' entails algorithmically or how it interacts with other adjustments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and fuller parameter semantics that would help an agent use this mutation tool correctly in a complex sibling tool environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'local_ids' as an option alongside 'selected photos', adding some context about what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between these two input modes or provide examples, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the parameter effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run Auto Tone style adjustments') and target ('for selected photos or local_ids'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'auto_white_balance' or 'apply_develop_settings', which might also perform automated adjustments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It mentions 'selected photos or local_ids' but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., whether photos must be in develop mode) or compare it to other auto-adjustment tools like 'auto_white_balance' or manual adjustment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Set white balance to Auto') but doesn't mention whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects original files or virtual copies, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for this tool's functionality and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), but no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context about behavioral aspects. For a photo editing tool that modifies image properties, more information about side effects and usage constraints would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'local_ids' as a parameter option, which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't explain what happens when local_ids is null (uses default) versus when an array is provided, or clarify the relationship between 'selected photos' and 'local_ids'. It adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set white balance to Auto') and the target ('selected photos or local_ids'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'auto_tone' by specifying the white balance adjustment, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if no photos are selected. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, what happens on duplicate names, if changes are reversible, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information ('Create a new collection').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal—it doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or usage context. It meets the bare minimum but leaves the agent with significant unknowns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'optionally inside a collection set', which hints at the purpose of 'parent_id', but doesn't explain 'name' or provide any details about parameter formats, constraints, or semantics. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new collection') and resource ('collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions the optional parent relationship ('optionally inside a collection set'), which adds useful specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_collections' or 'delete_collection' beyond the obvious verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether you need specific permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'add_to_collection' or 'remove_from_collection'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., removing photos from the collection first), or returns confirmation data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description should at least warn about irreversibility or mention prerequisites. It's minimally adequate but lacks critical context for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by its ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'collection_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't explain format, validation, or where to find the ID (e.g., from 'list_collections'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a collection by its ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_collection' and 'remove_from_collection' by focusing on permanent deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a destructive operation, which would make it a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the collection must be empty), compare it to similar tools like 'delete_snapshot', or warn about irreversible consequences. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Finds' a photo, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if path doesn't exist), permissions needed, or whether it returns metadata or full photo data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), low parameter count (1), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter intent but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'absolute file path' for the 'path' parameter, clarifying the required format beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't detail path syntax (e.g., OS-specific) or examples, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'one Lightroom catalog photo', specifying it's by 'absolute file path'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_photo' or 'get_selected_photos' by focusing on path-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing catalog), exclusions, or compare to other photo-retrieval tools like 'get_active_photo', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'direct file-inspection details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with photo files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the action and key detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't fully compensate for other gaps in a tool that likely handles photo data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('limit') documented only in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics, failing to explain what 'limit' controls or how it affects the listing. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter context in the description reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('selected Lightroom photos'), specifying the scope as 'selected' photos with 'direct file-inspection details'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_selected_photos' by emphasizing file-level details, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_selected_photos' or 'get_active_photo_file'. The description implies usage for file-inspection details but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('invert') but doesn't explain what 'invert' means in this context (e.g., does it toggle visibility, reverse selection, or change properties?), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Invert the active mask') and adds optional details concisely. There is no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter with low schema coverage and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that performs an operation ('invert') with potential side effects, more context on behavior and usage would improve completeness, especially since no annotations are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('mask_id') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds some meaning by explaining it as 'a specific mask by ID' and mentioning the default case ('the active mask'). However, it doesn't provide details on ID format, what 'active mask' means, or how the tool behaves with null vs. integer values, so it partially compensates but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('invert') and the target ('the active mask or a specific mask by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'select_mask' or 'toggle_mask_overlay', which might involve mask operations but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'the active mask (or a specific mask by ID)', implying it can be used in two contexts, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toggle_mask_overlay' or other mask-related tools in the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves ranges but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what 'where available' entails (e.g., partial data), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, which are needed for full understanding despite the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the tool can fetch ranges for parameters, but doesn't explain the 'parameters' input (e.g., what it accepts, default behavior). This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('numeric ranges for known develop parameters'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_develop_parameters' or 'get_develop_param_range', which appear related, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as 'list_develop_parameters' or 'get_develop_param_range'. It mentions 'where available' but doesn't specify context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (modifies original files), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or provides confirmation/undo capabilities. The description is minimal and lacks operational context needed 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes all essential elements (action, target, direction). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and moderate complexity (single parameter mutation), the description is minimally complete but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should disclose more about the mutation's nature (destructive vs. reversible), permissions, or side effects. The description covers the basic what but not the how or implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'selected photos' which relates to the 'local_ids' parameter, adding meaning about what the parameter controls. However, it doesn't explain parameter format, optionality, or what happens when null/default is used. The description provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('rotate') and target ('selected photos') with specific direction ('90 degrees left'). It distinguishes from sibling 'rotate_right' by specifying left rotation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other photo manipulation tools like 'reset_current_photo' or 'auto_tone' beyond the rotation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing photos selected), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'rotate_right' or other editing operations. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is to 'select' a mask, implying a read or activation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this changes application state, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., visual feedback). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. With no annotations and low parameter coverage, it provides minimal context beyond the basic action. For a simple selection tool, it's adequate but lacks depth on integration and effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'mask_id' is a 'numeric ID', which clarifies the parameter type beyond the schema's 'integer'. However, it doesn't explain what a mask ID represents, how to obtain it, or valid ranges, leaving the parameter only partially documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Select') and resource ('an existing mask'), specifying it's done 'by its numeric ID'. It distinguishes from sibling 'select_mask_tool' by focusing on selection by ID rather than tool activation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other mask-related tools like 'create_ai_mask' or 'invert_mask' beyond the selection aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mask ID), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'select_mask_tool' or explain its role in a workflow. The description assumes context without providing usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if local_ids are null. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'caption' and 'local_ids' parameters by context but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or what happens when local_ids is null. It adds marginal value by naming the parameters but lacks detailed guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set'), the target resource ('Lightroom caption metadata'), and the scope ('for selected photos or local_ids'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_title' or 'set_label' that also modify metadata fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'set_title' or 'set_label', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing photos selected in Lightroom) or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether changes are reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), side effects, or rate limits. The mention of clearing with an empty string adds minimal context, but overall transparency is poor for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential detail (clearing option) without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (one undocumented), and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the primary parameter's semantics but misses behavioral context and the second parameter, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'label' parameter's purpose and special case (empty string to clear), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't address the 'local_ids' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('Lightroom color label name'), and specifies the option to clear with an empty string. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_rating' or 'set_title' by focusing on color labels. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other label-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is provided. The description mentions clearing with an empty string, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an active photo), exclusions, or compare to other setting tools like 'set_rating'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a mutation ('Set'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if 'local_ids' is null. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and context, leaving the agent to rely heavily on the output schema and trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'title' and 'local_ids', but doesn't explain their roles, formats, or interactions (e.g., that 'local_ids' can be null to use selected photos). This partially compensates but is insufficient for full understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('Lightroom title metadata for selected photos or local_ids'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_caption' or 'set_label', but the focus on title metadata is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_caption' or 'set_label', nor are there any prerequisites or context for usage mentioned. The description only states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks availability but doesn't explain what 'available' means in this context, whether it requires specific permissions, what the response format is, or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear for a tool that queries state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a state-checking purpose, it should ideally clarify what 'available' entails and the output format, though the output schema may cover the latter. It's complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for optimal agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, as none are needed, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking the availability of undo/redo operations, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('undo/redo operations'). It distinguishes itself from the 'undo' and 'redo' sibling tools by focusing on availability rather than performing the operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other state-checking tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships with the 'undo' and 'redo' tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the photo permanently), error conditions, or response format. The mention of 'AI-powered' hints at automation but doesn't clarify reliability or limitations. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the subsequent lines efficiently detailing parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (AI-powered mask creation with parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but misses behavioral context like side effects or error handling. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is acceptable, but overall it's minimally adequate with clear room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It lists all valid values for 'mask_type' (subject, sky, background, person, object, depth, luminance, color) and 'operation' (new, add, subtract, intersect), including the default for 'operation'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making parameter meanings clear despite the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create an AI-powered mask') and specifies the target resource ('on the active photo'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'invert_mask', 'select_mask', or 'toggle_mask_overlay' by focusing on AI-powered creation rather than manipulation or selection of existing masks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible mask-related operations in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active photo), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'invert_mask' or 'select_mask'. The context is implied ('on the active photo'), but explicit usage instructions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metadata and file-inspection details, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 0 parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what the tool retrieves but lacks context on usage, behavior, or differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, more guidance would be beneficial to ensure correct agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input structure. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant information. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters are present.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active photo metadata plus direct file-inspection details'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_photo' or 'get_selected_photo_files', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active_photo' or 'get_selected_photos'. The description implies usage for retrieving metadata and file details but doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists photos, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or if it has rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There is no wasted verbiage, and it effectively communicates the essential information in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation implied), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and output format ('IDs and key metadata'), and with an output schema present, detailed return value explanations are not needed. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios and behavioral nuances, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent needing to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the schema structure alone offers some guidance, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List selected Lightroom photos with IDs and key metadata.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('selected Lightroom photos'), and scope ('with IDs and key metadata'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_active_photo' or 'get_selected_photo_files', which reduces clarity in distinguishing usage contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing photos to be selected in Lightroom, or compare it to siblings like 'get_selected_photo_files' (which might return files instead of metadata). Without such context, the agent may struggle to choose appropriately among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool verifies connectivity and health but doesn't describe what 'verify' entails (e.g., returns status codes, error messages, or detailed diagnostics), whether it's safe or has side effects, or any performance considerations like timeouts. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Verify Lightroom bridge connectivity and plugin health.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part earns its place by specifying what is being verified. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is simplified. It states the purpose clearly but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what the verification entails or output format. With no annotations, it should provide more context on safety or performance, but the output schema may cover return values, keeping it minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify Lightroom bridge connectivity and plugin health.' It specifies the action ('verify') and the target (Lightroom bridge connectivity and plugin health). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lightroom_status' or 'lightroom_list_commands', which may have overlapping diagnostic functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools like 'lightroom_status' or 'lightroom_list_commands'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is retrieved but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and sibling tools that might overlap, it lacks context on when to use it and behavioral details, making it only minimally complete for a simple status-checking tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high score as it adds value by explaining what is retrieved without unnecessary repetition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('plugin status, command count, and socket state'), making it easy to understand what information it retrieves. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lightroom_ping' or 'lightroom_list_commands', which might offer overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'lightroom_ping' (which might check connectivity) or 'lightroom_list_commands' (which might list available commands), leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but fails to add context such as whether it's read-only, safe, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be helpful for an AI agent, such as safety or output details, which holds it back from a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids redundant information, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all collections and collection sets in the catalog'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_collection' or 'delete_collection' beyond the inherent action difference, which is why it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., for browsing vs. filtering), or comparisons to other listing tools like 'list_snapshots' or 'list_develop_presets'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or what 'grouped' means operationally (e.g., by preset type or user-defined). The phrase 'faster targeted edits' hints at efficiency but lacks concrete details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List grouped develop parameter sets') and adds value with the purpose ('for faster targeted edits'). There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameters. However, as a list tool with no annotations, it lacks context on permissions, result format, or how 'grouped' is defined, which could help an agent use it correctly. It's minimally adequate but has gaps in behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('grouped develop parameter sets'), and mentions the benefit ('for faster targeted edits'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_develop_parameters' by focusing on groups rather than individual parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_develop_group_settings' which might retrieve settings for a specific group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'list_develop_parameters' or 'get_develop_group_settings'. It mentions 'faster targeted edits' as a benefit, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflows where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, or has rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and an output schema, it could benefit from clarifying the return format (e.g., list of parameter names) or usage context to better guide the agent, leaving some gaps in overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('develop parameters'), specifying the scope ('known by this Lightroom Classic install'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_develop_groups' or 'list_develop_presets' by focusing on parameters, but could be more explicit about what 'develop parameters' entails (e.g., camera raw settings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active photo), exclusions, or related tools like 'get_develop_settings' for specific values, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that presets 'can be applied in one call,' hinting at a read-only operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions, rate limits, output format, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details like output structure or usage context, which are important even with an output schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description should still cover more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not overloading with unnecessary content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('built-in editing presets'), with the additional context that these presets 'can be applied in one call.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_lightroom_presets' or 'apply_develop_preset,' which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as 'list_lightroom_presets' or 'apply_develop_preset.' It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned data. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or data format, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets the requirement for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Lightroom's built-in and user-created develop presets'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_develop_presets' or 'list_develop_parameters', which could cause confusion about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_develop_presets' or 'apply_develop_preset'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether Lightroom needs to be active or if specific permissions are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage guidelines, which are important for a tool with no annotations, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, which justifies a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available local_* adjustment parameters for masks'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_develop_parameters' or 'get_local_adjustment_settings', which might be related, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as rotation modifies photos), permission requirements, or what happens if no photos are selected. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which likely describes the result), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it should provide more context about side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by implying the parameter's purpose: 'selected photos' suggests 'local_ids' refers to photos to rotate. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format (array of integers vs. null) or default behavior (null likely means use currently selected photos).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('rotate') and target ('selected photos') with specific direction ('90 degrees right'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'rotate_left' by specifying direction, though it doesn't explicitly mention that distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'rotate_left' or other photo manipulation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing photos to be selected first) or contextual constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a surface level, without mentioning whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or how it affects the system state. For a tool that modifies data, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with the parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the description provides essential parameter semantics missing from the input schema, the description is adequate for basic usage. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context about side effects, permissions, or system impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides crucial semantic meaning for the 'status' parameter that the schema (with 0% description coverage) completely lacks. It explains that -1 means 'reject', 0 means 'unflag', and 1 means 'pick'. This transforms an ambiguous integer parameter into meaningful business logic. The description doesn't address the 'local_ids' parameter, but the value added for 'status' is substantial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set pick flag') and specifies the three possible values (-1, 0, 1) with their meanings (reject, unflag, pick). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'set_rating' or 'set_label' by focusing specifically on pick status. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what resource this applies to (presumably photos).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'set_rating' or 'set_label'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios. The user must infer usage from the parameter values alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the toggle action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this affects photo editing state, requires specific conditions, has visual feedback, or interacts with other tools. It's minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words or structure issues.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on effects, side effects, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter burden to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggle') and the target ('lens blur depth visualization overlay'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_mask_overlay' or explain what makes this visualization unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. The description is purely functional without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the toggle action but doesn't explain what the mask overlay is, whether it's persistent across sessions, what visual effect it has, or any side effects. For a visualization toggle with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and communicates the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a simple toggle operation, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about what the mask overlay actually is or when it would be useful, which would help an agent understand its purpose better.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly matches the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('toggle') and the target ('mask overlay visualization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools, but since no other tools mention mask overlays, this is sufficient for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It's a bare statement of functionality without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible (via 'redo'), what happens on failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions or dependencies, which are important for safe usage in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's function, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('undo') and the target ('last Lightroom operation'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'redo', which handles redoing operations, though this distinction is implied by the tool names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as 'redo' for reversing an undo or 'reset_current_photo' for more extensive changes. It lacks context on prerequisites like checking 'can_undo' first or any limitations on what operations can be undone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose details like error handling (e.g., what happens if no photo is active), permissions needed, or rate limits. It adds basic context about the selection but lacks richer behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word earns its place with no waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and context ('active Lightroom photo in the current selection'), which is adequate for this simple tool. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details given no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param semantics, but with no params, the baseline is 4 as it's complete by default. No compensation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'active Lightroom photo', specifying it's from 'the current selection'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_selected_photos' (plural) and 'get_active_photo_file' (file vs. photo). However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential similar tools like 'get_selected_photos' in terms of scope, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'in the current selection', which implies usage when a selection exists, but it doesn't specify when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_selected_photos' or 'get_active_photo_file', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit alternatives or context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits: it mentions 'strict=True to reject unknown parameters' and 'clamp=True (default) auto-clamps to valid ranges', which are important for understanding how the tool handles input. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, side effects on photos, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear example for the main parameter, then concise explanations of key boolean flags. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the core functionality and key parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it doesn't fully address all parameters (like 'local_ids') or provide comprehensive behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the 'settings' parameter with a concrete example dict, clarifies 'strict' and 'clamp' behaviors, and mentions 'history_name' creates an undo step. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover 'local_ids' parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply') and target ('develop settings to selected photos or local_ids'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'set_develop_param', but the focus on custom settings dicts provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'set_develop_param'. The description mentions what the tool does but doesn't provide context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites beyond the basic functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Reset') but does not clarify whether this is destructive (e.g., irreversible without undo), requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'all develop adjustments' implies a broad scope, but behavioral traits like confirmation prompts or error conditions are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reset all develop adjustments') and target ('currently active photo'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, which are important for contextual understanding despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Reset all develop adjustments') and the target resource ('on the currently active photo'), using precise terminology that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apply_develop_settings' or 'undo' which perform different operations. It directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active photo), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'undo', 'apply_snapshot', or 'apply_develop_preset', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 key behavioral traits: operations run sequentially, error handling via 'stop_on_error', and default application of 'default_local_ids'. However, it doesn't cover permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'failure'—significant gaps for a batch operation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second defines operation structure, the third gives examples, and the fourth covers execution order and key parameters. No wasted words, though minor formatting could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does well. It explains the complex 'operations' array and key parameters like 'stop_on_error' and 'default_local_ids', though it omits 'strict' and 'clamp'. The output schema relieves it from detailing return values, making it reasonably complete for the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains 'operations' with examples and structure, clarifies 'default_local_ids' application, and mentions 'stop_on_error' behavior. It doesn't address 'strict' or 'clamp' parameters, but covers the most complex ones well, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run multiple preset/settings/parameter/group operations in sequence.' It specifies the verb ('run') and resources ('operations'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_develop_preset' or 'apply_develop_settings' beyond implying batch capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning operation types and examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual apply tools. It provides some operational guidance (e.g., 'stop_on_error=True to halt on first failure'), but lacks clear when/when-not directives or named sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it applies edits, creates folders if needed, and specifies the output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., file overwriting), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds essential details (edits applied, folder creation) without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description covers key aspects like purpose, behavior, and some parameters. With an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values, but could improve by addressing missing parameter details and behavioral risks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'destination' as a folder path and 'local_ids' for selecting photos, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not cover the 'quality' parameter or provide details like format constraints, partially compensating for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('photos'), specifying the output format ('JPG') and destination ('to a destination folder'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on exporting with edits applied, unlike tools for editing, selecting, or managing photos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exporting photos with edits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other export or file-handling tools). It mentions selecting photos or using local_ids, providing some context, but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a listing operation (implying read-only), it doesn't specify whether the list is static or dynamic, if there are permissions required, rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. However, with no annotations and a read operation, it could benefit from clarifying whether this lists all commands or only certain types, and any limitations. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List command names') and target resource ('currently exposed by the Lightroom plugin'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform various Lightroom operations rather than listing available commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (discovering available commands) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It doesn't mention whether this should be used for initial discovery, debugging, or dynamic command checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the mask prerequisite. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive/write operation (implied by 'Set'), what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what happens if no mask is active. The behavioral context is minimal for a tool that modifies settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first states the purpose, second provides parameter format with example, third gives critical prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the parameter well and states the prerequisite. However, it lacks behavioral details like error conditions or confirmation of changes. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but more operational context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameter. It does this excellently: it names the parameter ('settings dict'), explains the format ('uses local_* parameter names'), provides a concrete example with specific keys and values, and clarifies it's an object with additionalProperties. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set local_* adjustment parameters'), target resource ('on the currently active mask'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_develop_param' or 'apply_develop_settings' by focusing on local mask adjustments. It provides a concrete example of the settings format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the prerequisite 'A mask must be active (selected) first', which is crucial usage guidance. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_develop_param' for global adjustments or 'get_local_adjustment_settings' for reading values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if there's nothing to redo, or how it interacts with the Lightroom state. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and usage context, making it maximally efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a simple operation, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context about error conditions or state dependencies to be fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than unnecessary parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Redo') and the exact resource ('the last undone Lightroom operation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'undo' and other editing commands. It uses precise terminology that matches the Lightroom context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly defines when to use this tool: after an 'undo' operation has been performed. It distinguishes from alternatives by specifying it applies to the 'last undone' action, not general redo operations or other editing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
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 'settings dict' with detailed slider values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second details the return format, and the third provides usage guidance, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (reading many settings), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, return format, and usage context, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for its one parameter ('local_ids'), but the description compensates by explaining its semantics: it specifies that if 'local_ids' is provided, it uses the first ID, and if not, it defaults to the active photo. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all ~175 develop settings') and resources ('for the active photo or first in local_ids'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_develop_group_settings' or 'get_local_adjustment_settings' by emphasizing comprehensive coverage of all settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use it ('Call this before editing to understand the photo's current state'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as more targeted tools like 'get_develop_group_settings'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates this is a read operation ('Read', 'Returns values'), specifies the scope ('on the currently active mask'), and provides important behavioral context about the prerequisite condition. It doesn't mention error behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides sufficient core behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the return values, and the third provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a read operation with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the prerequisite condition. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return format specifics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does provide valuable context about what the tool returns ('Returns values for local_Exposure, local_Contrast, local_Highlights, etc.'), which adds semantic meaning beyond the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Read local_* adjustment parameters') and identifies the target resource ('on the currently active mask'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_develop_settings' or 'get_develop_group_settings' by focusing specifically on local adjustment parameters associated with masks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'A mask must be active (selected) first.' This clearly states a prerequisite condition for successful tool invocation. It also implicitly distinguishes this tool from other get_* tools by specifying it operates on mask-specific parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/4xiomdev/lightroom-classic-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server