List Images Tool

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses what the response contains (streams, variants, pull URL, full category list), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or authentication needs.

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 with no filler; the core scope is front-loaded and the secondary note about categories follows. Every sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly avoids that. With only two optional, fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, nothing critical is missing, though a brief routing note versus get_image_tool would make it fully self-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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both `query` (case-insensitive substring of name or summary) and `category` (exact application_category). The description adds only one marginal detail — that valid category values come from the response's own category list — which is a helpful workflow hint but no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List images in the Hummingbird catalog') plus the content returned ('streams, variants and pull URL'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_image_tool, so the differentiation is only implied by the plural/singular distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list images' for discovery, and the note that the response lists every category 'for use as `category`' hints at a filter-discovery workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_image_tool, no when-not-to-use, and no stated prerequisites.

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