List Store Image Specs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns per-type requirements, and it enumerates the exact dimensions of the output: formats, alpha channel, dimensions, aspect limit, and size cap. This makes the behavior clear and confirms it is a read-only lookup rather than a mutating 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a short structured return list. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

This tool takes no parameters, has no annotations, and the description already covers the return content in detail. Combined with the presence of an output schema, the agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Play's requirements for every store-listing image type.' It distinctly differentiates from sibling image tools like list_images, upload_image, and preflight_store_image by focusing on the spec/requirements aspect rather than actual image management or validation.

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 implies a clear use case: consult this tool when you need to know Play's image requirements for store listings, such as formats, dimensions, and size caps. It doesn't explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the read-only 'requirements' framing is enough context for an agent to select it over file-uploading or validation tools.

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