Photos Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior — that 'total' (not the returned count) is the true match count — which is useful. However, it says nothing about authentication/profile requirements, pagination behavior, or why host/port/scheme connection parameters exist, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a network-backed query tool.

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 a short parenthetical — no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-written, which is why it stops short of a 5, but nothing wasteful is present.

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 one line about 'total' usefully clarifies a return-field trap. Still, for a tool with connection parameters (host/port/scheme/profile) and no annotations, the definition omits any note on session requirements or limits, leaving it only minimally complete.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description's '含 AI 搜图' note loosely maps to the keyword parameter but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('搜索相册照片' / search album photos) and adds a distinguishing capability note (AI 语义搜图). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like photos_detail or photos_folders, so it falls short of a 5, but an agent can identify the core action without opening the schema.

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 only implied by the verb — search photos with a keyword. No when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as photos_folders (browse) or photos_detail (fetch one photo). The AI-semantic-search note hints at a use case but does not constitute selection guidance.

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