skylight_list_albums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline — no return shape, no pagination or ordering behavior, no note on what happens when frameId is omitted. With the bar lowered by annotations, this still contributes zero extra behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a 5 given what it omits.

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 list tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate. Missing are any note on the return format (no output schema exists), pagination, and the meaning of the one undocumented parameter, so an agent still has gaps before calling it.

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% and the single frameId parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only obliquely implies frame scoping via the phrase 'on the Skylight frame'; it never explains what frameId is, that it is optional (required=0), or what scope applies when it is omitted. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (photo albums) with a clear scope qualifier (on the Skylight frame). An agent can tell it apart from mutation siblings like create_album/delete_album. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the other list_* siblings (list_frames, list_avatars, list_recipes), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not point to any alternative tool. It never explains the relationship to set_device_album or the album-mutation siblings, leaving the agent 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.