Photos Folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare listing action. It does not mention the authentication/session requirement implied by the host/port/profile parameters, nor whether the result is scoped to a user or shared library.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but at this length the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool with four connection/session parameters and no annotations, the description omits the login/credential context an agent needs before invoking it. The result is under-specified for the tool's operational context.

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% and each of the four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about connection or profile 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 states a concrete verb (列出 / list) and resource (相册文件夹 / album folders), which is more specific than the tool name alone and is distinguishable from siblings like photos_search or photos_detail. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, so it does not reach the top tier.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus photos_search, photos_detail, or photos_preview_url, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and phrase.

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