photos_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (AFC file access), the data scope (untrashed, not Recently Deleted), and a failure mode (fast-fail if missing library). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any side effects, and lacks details on permissions or connectivity requirements.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: 'Pull Photos.sqlite via AFC; list untrashed assets'. Optional filters and dependency are mentioned succinctly. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned list contains, its format, or any pagination/limits. The output is crucial for a list tool, and its omission leaves a significant gap. While the sibling tools are diverse, the description fails to provide a complete picture 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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for mediaType and idPrefix/localIdentifier, stating they are optional filters and specifying 'image|video' for mediaType (though already in schema enum). udid is left undocumented. The additional explanation partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 it pulls Photos.sqlite via AFC and lists untrashed assets, with optional filters. It identifies the specific resource (Photos.sqlite) and action (list), and distinguishes from sibling tools like photos_ensure, photos_import, and photos_clear which perform different operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions prerequisites (FRIDA_MCP_PYTHON, pymobiledevice3) and a fast-fail condition, but does not clarify when listing is appropriate compared to other photo-related tools. Implied usage is vague.

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