List images

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing that images can be shared across multiple paths and that results include unsaved replacements. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior despite the presence of a limit parameter.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the filter rule. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, which slightly weakens the opening but wastes no 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?

The description does compensate for the missing output schema by enumerating returned fields (index, all paths using the image, unsaved replacement). It is incomplete for a tool with zero required parameters, though, since the all-results case and limit semantics — the main source of misuse risk — are left unaddressed.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that query matches against the path as a substring, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about limit — no default, no ordering, no behavior when omitted — leaving one of two parameters unexplained.

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 names the exact resource (images in the skin's images.mcf) and the filtering rule (path contains the query), so an agent knows this is a substring-filtered listing, not a single fetch. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_image or replace_images to contrast itself against, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 implied by the filtering condition ('path contains the query'), which tells the agent this is a search-style listing. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_image, replace_images, or find_vehicle_messages, and no guidance on what happens with an empty query.

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