photos_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'capped' (implying limited results) and 'local', but provides no further behavioral details such as how cap works, what happens on limit exceed, or any other side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 single sentence that efficiently conveys key aspects: action, resource, filter, and constraints. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and is a search operation, the description is too brief. It does not cover parameter meaning, result format, or how the 'capped' behavior works. The output schema exists but the description offers no guidance on its content.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints that 'query' is an original filename, but does not describe 'limit', 'media_type', or 'max_scan_assets'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand parameter semantics.

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 action ('Search'), resource ('local Photos metadata'), filter ('by original filename'), and constraints ('capped and read-only'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like photos_export_asset and photos_get_asset by focusing on metadata search by filename.

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

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

The description implies usage for searching local Photos by filename but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusion criteria or context about alternatives like other search tools.

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