List Images by Contributor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or result size limits beyond what the input schema already states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present. However, pagination behavior and the fact that results are paginated (only implied by the page param) are not surfaced in the description.

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 contributor_uuid and page are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the contributor-scoped filter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (silhouette images) scoped by contributor, and names the exact filter. An agent can distinguish it from search_images_by_node and search_images_by_clade, which scope by taxonomy rather than contributor.

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?

"Use this to browse all images uploaded by a particular artist or contributor" implies a browsing use case but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance. An agent must infer that search_images_by_node/clade are for taxonomy-based browsing.

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