skylight_list_avatars

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. The description usefully adds that the library is preset (no custom uploads) and that returned ids are consumed by category tools. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or returned fields, so it adds modest value 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first and the downstream id usage is packaged into the second sentence, so 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 could say more about the shape of the list (ids plus image references), but it does convey what the entries are and how the ids are used. For a simple zero-parameter read tool, this is nearly sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no schema surface for the description to explain. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the preset avatar library") and clarifies the content type (emoji/icon images). This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like skylight_list_frames and from avatar-setting tools, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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 explains the downstream purpose: obtain an avatar id for skylight_create_category / skylight_update_category, explicitly noting this avoids uploading a custom photo (an implicit contrast with skylight_upload_photo). It does not state when not to use it or reference set_member_avatar as a sibling, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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