listUserPhotos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: pagination mechanism (cursor-based), filter operator rules (including silent-drop and derived-field unfilterability), and return format. It fully discloses the read-only nature and operational nuances beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with sections (Use when, Pagination, Filter/sort, See also, Returns), front-loading the core purpose. While it includes references to external rules, each sentence adds value. It is slightly verbose but efficient for the complexity, warranting a 4.

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 tool with 7 parameters, pagination, and filters, the description covers usage, pagination, filter/sort, and return format explicitly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by detailing the response structure. However, references to external rules (Pagination, Filter operators) leave some gaps; embedding those rules would make it fully self-contained. Thus a 4.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters: explaining how property/property_value can filter by user_id, detailing pagination with limit and page, and referencing rules for operators. This goes beyond schema descriptions, earning a 4 given the high baseline.

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 'List user photos' and 'Paginated enumeration of userphoto records. Read-only.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like getUserPhoto (single record) and createUserPhoto. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, using a strong verb-resource pair.

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 'Use when' section explicitly defines the scenario: enumerating photos attached to members (profile, logo, cover) with optional filter by user_id. The 'See also' section directs to getUserPhoto for single-record lookup, providing clear alternatives. This gives comprehensive guidance on when to use this tool.

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