list_listing_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention it returns ids, urls, and hashes, and scopes to one type/locale, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, any required permissions, or whether pagination applies. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but without annotation confirmation or further details, this is only minimal disclosure.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second provides a usage pointer. There is no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately mentions the return fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple list operation with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It tells the agent what the tool returns, the scoping dimensions (type and locale), and how the result should be used (with delete_listing_image). No additional details are needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level information. It does not elaborate on how parameters interact or provide usage notes beyond what the schema already explains. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states the verb (List), the resource (store images), and the scope (one type for one locale). It also specifies the output fields (id, url, sha1, sha256), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_listings that cover listing metadata. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 guidance by stating 'Use the returned ids with delete_listing_image,' which indicates a primary follow-up action. It also implicitly conveys the tool is for listing images of a specific type and locale. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond the delete tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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