list_photos

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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: default ordering is newest-first, the total is returned, and keyword search runs in search order with no sorting applied. It also enumerates the row fields, though it omits pagination behavior details beyond the offset/limit params.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the most consequential constraint (combination rules) before the return-shape and routing details. It is dense and slightly run-on but nearly every clause carries non-redundant information.

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 17-parameter, zero-required filter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the rows contain and how to chain into get_photo/download_photos, which is exactly the context an agent needs. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics not present in the schema: the mutual-exclusion/combination rules between filter families and the note that IDs belong to one space. That is genuine meaning beyond the field-level descriptions.

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+resource ('List or search photos and videos in Synology Photos') with scope details (newest first by default, total included) and distinguishes itself from get_photo, download_photos, and File Station's list_files. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not for.

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?

Explicitly encodes the combination rules: folder/person/tag combine with date/type/rating/favorite, while album/place/concept/keyword work alone. It also names downstream alternatives ('pass the ids to get_photo for full details or to download_photos') and the File Station alternative with its enablement condition.

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