List image directions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently: 'Returns judgment summaries with no export payload', 'Read-only and free', and 'Pro records appear in the list without exposing their contents.' These are key behavioral disclosures beyond the schema.

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 composed of five focused sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, when to use, return behavior, relationship to design kit, and access limitations. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, usage context, return behavior (summaries), pointer to the detailed sibling tool, and read-only/free status. It is a complete description for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%—every parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse image directions' and explains what image directions are (process, treatment, subject matter for photography/illustration). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_image_direction by specifying that it returns judgment summaries rather than the implementable version.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use one when a kit is chosen but the imagery still has no direction...' and directs to the alternative tool: 'pick a slug and call get_image_direction for the implementable version.' This clearly states when to use this tool vs. the sibling.

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