list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether any side effects occur, what data is returned (beyond the output schema), or any requirements such as an active scene. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it might be too terse, missing helpful context that could be added without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is very minimal. It does not explain what 'image data blocks' are, whether they include all images in the scene or only certain types, or how results are returned. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks essential context about the tool's scope and behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers all properties (none). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies. It adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here.

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 (list) and resource (image data blocks), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling listing tools like list_lights or list_objects, but the resource name is distinct enough. A more explicit mention of scope (e.g., all images in the scene) would improve clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies listing images, the description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for similar purposes. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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