List Visual Formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scale fact (100+ formats), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination or response size despite implying a large catalog.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return fields before the usage routing. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly implies the return payload (format IDs, dimensions, categories), which is what an agent needs to chain into confirm_generation. The one gap is pagination or completeness behavior for a catalog advertised as 100+ entries.

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 0%, so the description should carry the weight, but it never mentions the category parameter or that results can be filtered by it. The enum values are self-explanatory and the default is 'all', which limits the damage, but the filtering behavior itself is left entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List the available visual formats") and names exactly what comes back (dimensions and categories). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by routing the agent to confirm_generation for the follow-up action.

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?

It gives an explicit reason to call it — finding the right format ID before calling confirm_generation — which is a clear use context, not implied. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. when an ID is already known), so it falls short of a full 5.

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