get_album

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' and explains the exact return shape: 'JSON with album metadata, a flat list of all asset_ids, and an assets array.' It also notes that the returned recognized people data can answer questions about who appears in an album without further calls, which is a useful behavioral promise. It does not cover error conditions or authentication requirements, but for a read-only single-resource fetch this is a minor gap.

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 well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, parameter explanation, and return details. Every section earns its place, and there is no redundant padding. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clearly labeled, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only fetch with an output schema, the description is complete: it states purpose, when to use it, what album_id should be, and what the response contains. It also contextualizes the return data with the 'who appears in this album / who repeats' use case. No critical information for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. It does: 'album_id: The album's UUID (from list_albums or create_album).' This adds format guidance and tells the agent where to obtain valid values, which is genuinely helpful beyond the bare schema. The one parameter is fully addressed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific album including all its asset IDs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from list_albums by stating, 'For listing all albums, use list_albums instead.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from its closest sibling.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'to inspect album contents or retrieve asset IDs for further operations (thumbnails, metadata, rotation).' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'For listing all albums, use list_albums instead.' This provides clear routing for an agent choosing between tools.

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