Search Images by Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does cover the most consequential behavioral trait: results are limited to images that *directly* represent the node, not descendants, and only 'silhouette' images are returned. It is silent on read-only guarantees, return payload shape, and empty-result behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the use case, then the alternative. Every sentence earns its place and none restates the schema.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and sibling routing adequately. It does not mention pagination behavior or what an image result contains, which is a minor but real gap given there are no annotations to fill in.

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% – both node_uuid (UUID of the phylogenetic node) and page (zero-indexed pagination) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond that, so the 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 and resource ('List silhouette images'), the precise scope ('directly represent a specific phylogenetic node'), and gives a concrete example (all images of Homo sapiens). It is immediately distinguishable from search_images_by_clade, which the description names explicitly.

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?

Gives both the when-to-use ('find all images of a particular taxon') and the when-to-use-the-alternative condition ('For ancestral nodes, consider using search_images_by_clade instead to get images of all descendant taxa as well'). Routing between the two siblings is fully specified rather than left to inference.

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