Find related galleries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior: 'Fetches metadata only' indicates a lightweight read, 'browses the first tag' reveals the algorithm, and 'The original set is omitted' clarifies output filtering. These go beyond the annotations with no contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by efficient behavioral details. No fluff or 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, annotations, and a 4-parameter schema with full descriptions, the description covers the essential behavior: tag selection (first tag), scope (metadata only), and output filtering (original set omitted). It is adequate for a read-only tool, though it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior—but that is covered by the page parameter and output schema.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra semantic value—it relates 'path' to the concept of a 'set' and mentions browsing the first tag, but this is contextual rather than parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Find more galleries sharing a tag') and the resource ('the given set'). It distinguishes from browse_tag by specifying it derives the tag from a set and browses the first tag, making the purpose specific and non-tautological.

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?

It provides clear context: given a set (path), it returns galleries sharing the first tag, fetching metadata only. It implies when to use it (when you have a set and want related galleries) and indirectly differentiates from browse_tag (which would be used when the tag is known), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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