Get Phone Photos

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it navigates the UI, scrapes the visible grid, and returns only visible metadata. The explicit no-download clarification is valuable and prevents false expectations. No contradiction with the annotations was found.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a behavior note, a useful caveat, and compact Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it does repeat parameter information already present in the schema and restates return information slightly.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the key invocation and return-shape details: max_photos bounds, photo_count, photos array, name, and bounds. It could be slightly more complete by elaborating on the 'type' field or potential failure modes when Phone Link is not connected, but nothing essential to calling the tool is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes max_photos fully with minimum, maximum, default, and a descriptive sentence. The description's Args section repeats the same information without adding new semantic context such as edge cases, performance implications, or how max_photos interacts with the visible grid. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'List recent photos from Phone Link's Photos tab.' It further clarifies the tool's exact behavior with 'Navigates to the Photos tab and scrapes the visible photo grid' and explicitly distinguishes itself from a downloader with 'This does NOT download photos.' This makes it easy to differentiate from sibling getters like phonelink_get_messages and phonelink_get_calls.

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 clear context on how the tool works and what it is limited to: it scrapes the visible photo grid and lists only visible entries. The 'does NOT download photos' note is an explicit non-usage signal. However, it never names alternatives or states a direct decision rule such as 'use this when you only need metadata' versus another tool for downloading.

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