list_images

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates a READ operation ([READ]), explains the args, and mentions ordering. It does not disclose return format or potential size limits, but is otherwise transparent.

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

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

The description is concise, with a clear purpose line and bullet-like arg explanations. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and args. It could mention return format or pagination, but overall it's complete enough.

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%, yet the description explains both parameters: 'all_images' includes intermediate layers vs top-level, and 'target' is for a config target. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists images with attributes (tags, size, dangling) and sorts largest first. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dangling_images' and 'inspect_image' by offering a broad listing with sort.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'dangling_images' for only dangling images, 'inspect_image' for details). The description does not mention exclusions or context.

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