List Images

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description adds the language/image_type scoping, but it discloses nothing about auth needs, return value format, or pagination. This is minimal but adequate for a low-risk list operation.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The operation and scope are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

All three required parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, so the description can stay lean. However, with no annotations and no usage/alternative context, the description is only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats the language and image_type concepts but adds no detail beyond the schema, and it omits package_name entirely. It provides no extra semantic value over the input schema.

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 names a specific operation ('List'), a specific resource ('store-listing images'), and the scoping dimensions ('language and image type'). This makes it distinguishable from sibling image tools like upload_image/delete_image and listing tools like list_all_listings or get_listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as upload_image, delete_image, get_listing, or list_store_image_specs. No context or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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