cricinfo_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that only bounded metadata is returned and that media files are not downloaded, which is a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but the 'latest' implies recency. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the bounded metadata and a note about not downloading media. Every sentence adds value; no waste.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return type (metadata) and a key limitation (no media download). It could mention ordering or that it returns up to 100 items, but the limit is already in the schema. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: the limit parameter is fully described in the input schema (max 100). The description itself adds nothing about the parameter, but the schema already covers it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'latest Cricinfo photos', distinguishing it from siblings like cricinfo_videos and cricinfo_news. The specific mention of metadata (captions, credits, dimensions, dates, image variants) further clarifies its scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that for videos one should use cricinfo_videos, or that this is for static photos only. 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.