List Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error payload specifics (401, 403, 404), and confirms read-only semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence contributes: filtering link, use case, return format, read-only note, error handling, and API context. It is not overly verbose, though the last portion about API and endpoint could be considered slightly extra.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format (JSON array), pagination, required parameter, filtering link, and common error responses. It does not detail image fields, but that is not essential for a list action. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond schema, mentioning required project_id and that page/per_page control pagination, which the schema already states. It does not compensate with deeper parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return a list of all Images') and identifies the resource and scope ('from a Project's Photo Album (Image Category)'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_image_categories or image mutation tools by its list focus and explicit use case of id lookup.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover images or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It gives a strong use case but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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