image_catalog

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

The read-only annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds useful return-format context ('four sheets to a page, each picture with its id under it') but omits the 20-page cap and does not clarify whether page is ignored when category is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a long single paragraph with poetic framing ('This is how a screen without words gets its meaning') and extensive example lists. The operative no-argument/with-category instructions are buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the browsing workflow and return format reasonably well. It still leaves the page maximum and category validation unstated, so it is callable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that category selects a category and that page refers to sheets of four, but it never states page's 1–20 bound or category validation rules; it does at least explain that valid categories are listed by calling without arguments.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the resource ('The pictures a screen can show...') and identifies it as the image catalog for the image control, then specifies the no-argument and with-category behaviors. It never names adjacent tools such as scene_asset_images or scene_search_assets, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the two modes clearly: no arguments lists categories with id ranges, and a category returns grid sheets to read ids from for use with scene_add_image. It also warns there are no names to search by, so browsing by eye is necessary. However, it gives no explicit when-not or direct alternative among the sibling asset/search tools.

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