lightroom_get_selected_photos

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the fallback behavior when nothing is selected, which is valuable. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and no destructive or mutating behavior is hinted at.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the primary function and a key fallback without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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 read-only getter with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the no-selection behavior. It could add a note about pagination, but the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters in the schema provide that structure, and the output schema handles return shape details.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention 'limit' or 'offset' at all. These parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description provides no guidance on pagination semantics, maximum values, or how these interact with the filmstrip fallback, so it does not compensate for the schema's low coverage.

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 identifies the core action: 'Get currently selected photos in Lightroom Classic', and adds a useful fallback behavior ('or filmstrip if none selected'). It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'get_selected_photos'.

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 when to use this tool—when the agent needs the current selection—and the filmstrip fallback adds context. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over sibling tools like 'search_photos' or 'get_photo_metadata', nor does it state when it should not be used.

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