Gallery (read)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds some useful action-level context, including defaulting list_stills to the current album, but 'no side effects' largely repeats the annotations and it does not discuss pagination or other operational constraints.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then uses a compact bullet list for actions. Every sentence and bullet adds actionable information with no filler.

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

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

For a read-only tool with two actions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates both actions and their parameters. The main omission is explicit routing to sibling tools, but the calling information itself is sufficient.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 100%, the schema itself only defines a generic nested op object with an action enum. The description adds meaningful per-action semantics: list_albums takes no params, list_stills takes an album and defaults to the current album.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read gallery state') and immediately lists the two supported gallery read actions. The 'no side effects' phrasing and action enumeration distinguish it from sibling write/delete tools such as gallery_write and gallery_delete.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'use it to find ids and check results.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as directing mutations to gallery_write or deletions to gallery_delete.

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