search_gallery

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what results include (preview URLs, LemGen source links) and access requirements (free, no API key). This provides useful behavioral context for selection.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information. Every phrase serves a purpose: specifying the resource, output, and access constraints.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the resource, output format, and access. However, it omits details about pagination or result ordering (beyond what the sort parameter provides), which are minor gaps.

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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (query, category) but the description itself adds no parameter guidance. It does not elaborate on sort, limit, model, or mediaType beyond their schema definitions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names and enums alone.

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 searches a curated AI image/video prompt library, with specific output including preview URLs and source links. It is distinct from sibling tools like generate_image or enhance_prompt, which are about creation or modification.

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 usage for finding prompts via search, and mentions 'Free, no API key required' to encourage use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_inspiration or provide when-not scenarios, though the context is clear enough.

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