Photos Raw Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE require confirmation, which is real behavioral context for a mutation-capable pass-through, but says nothing about auth/session needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the purpose first and the safety caveat in a compact parenthetical. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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, and the schema covers parameters well. The description supplies the essentials (what it is, advanced-usage framing, mutation confirmation), leaving only auth/session context unstated.

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 88%, so the schema already documents parameters like host, port, scheme, and profile. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but leaves the baseline.

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 (调用/call) and resource (Photos 原生 HTTP API), scoping it to Photos and separating it from generic siblings like raw_request and docker_request. It is clearly a low-level pass-through, though it doesn't say which API surface it exposes.

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 parenthetical '高级用法' (advanced usage) implies it is a fallback for cases the higher-level photos_* tools don't cover, but it never names those alternatives or states when-not to use this. Usage is only implied.

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