Resolve galleries from image pages in batch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not reiterate safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it preserves input order, duplicates, and per-entry errors, which goes beyond what annotations provide. This helps the agent understand the exact output characteristics without needing the output 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes the batch size constraint, and lists key behavioral properties. Every element contributes meaning, with no wasted words.

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 batch resolution tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it preserves (order, duplicates, errors), and the input size limit. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles that. Sibling tools like 'eh_resolve_gallery' suggest this is the multi-entry variant, making the description self-contained and 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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not cover the 'site' parameter or the structure of 'pages' items (gid, pageToken, page). However, the schema itself is clear (e.g., enums, patterns, field names), and with only 2 parameters, the risk is moderate. Baseline 3 is appropriate given limited schema coverage but insufficient compensation in the description.

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 specifies the verb 'resolve', the resource 'image-page references to gallery tokens', and the scope 'batch' with an explicit number range (1-500). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'eh_resolve_gallery' by indicating it operates on multiple entries at once.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to resolve multiple image-page references to gallery tokens) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly with alternatives like 'eh_resolve_gallery' for single entries. It lacks explicit guidance on trade-offs or prerequisites.

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