list_generated_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the source directory, return fields, and sidecar JSON parsing. However, it omits behavior when the directory is missing or empty, and does not confirm read-only nature beyond implication.

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 brief, using three sentences to cover purpose, source, return values, and parameter. It front-loads the key action and avoids redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description fully covers the functionality: what is listed, where from, what is returned, and the parameter's effect. The presence of an output schema complements the return value explanation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds an 'Args' section explaining the limit parameter's purpose, default value, and ordering. This compensates for the lack of property descriptions, though more detail on validation or constraints would strengthen it.

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 tool lists recently generated images in the PKM, specifies the source directory, and details the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_folder and generate_image by focusing on generated images with specific metadata.

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 usage for viewing recently generated images but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_folder or list_recent_memory. It does not provide exclusions or mention prerequisites.

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