list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all images' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., scope or limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise ('List all images'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (a listing operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving the agent with minimal guidance. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more completeness is needed to aid selection and 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 'List all images' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('images'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_servers' or 'list_volumes' beyond the resource name, making it somewhat vague about what makes this listing operation unique. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing different resources (e.g., 'list_servers', 'list_volumes'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name alone, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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