Get album images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces them with 'Read-only.' Beyond that it discloses the return modality (image blocks for inline display, not JSON), which is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs. It stops short of covering pagination or what happens when limit exceeds the album size, so it is not fully rich.

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 the core action and output form, then the alternative routing, then a structured Args list. Minor redundancy: the closing 'Returns' line largely restates the first sentence's 'image blocks for inline visual display', and 'Read-only.' duplicates the annotation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return shape in prose ('a list of image blocks suitable for visual display'). Combined with full parameter documentation and explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carries the full burden and does so: album_id is identified as a UUID, size is given concrete meanings ('thumbnail' 250px vs 'preview' 1440px) with its default, and limit is bounded (1-50, default 20). This adds substantially more than the bare typed properties in the schema.

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 ('Get an album's thumbnails') plus the output form ('as image blocks for inline visual display'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_album_thumbnails, so an agent can pick the right one without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('visually browse an album in clients that render images') and a when-not-to-use with the named alternative ('For HTML gallery generation with base64 data URIs ... use get_album_thumbnails instead'), including why that alternative differs (JSON with filenames and dates).

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