play_list_screenshots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: read-only, deterministic ordering, and the sha256 return shape. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, and what happens for an unpublished or missing image type, so behavior is only partially covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only status, followed by the return detail. No filler, though the return explanation is partly redundant given the output schema exists.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so listing content is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent without the argument semantics and safety/authorization context needed to call it confidently.

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% across three parameters. The description loosely maps 'one listing image type' to image_type and 'listing' to package_name, but adds no format, enum values, or defaults, and says nothing about the language parameter. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the published screenshots of one listing image type.' The verb 'list' plus the read-only framing clearly separates it from the write-side sibling play_upload_screenshots, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'compare them with local files to confirm what is published' hints at a verification workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like play_content_status or play_upload_screenshots.

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