photo_albums

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: it discloses the Full Disk Access requirement (osxphotos reads the library at rest), a hard cap of 100 results, the sort order (folder then title), the possible `truncated` flag, and that same-title albums are kept distinct. These are exactly the operational constraints an agent needs before invoking.

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 purpose and alternatives, then constraints, then the return contract — good ordering with no filler sentences. Minor waste in restating the `{results, truncated?}` return shape, which an output schema already covers.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything else that matters: auth prerequisite, result cap, ordering, truncation behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 is 4 and there is nothing parameter-level to document. The description instead clarifies the semantics of the returned pointer fields, which is supplementary rather than compensating for any schema gap.

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 Photos albums') plus the exact shape of what is returned as pointers (id/summary/folder). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the `photos` sibling by noting albums' photos are not listed, so an agent can choose between them 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?

Gives a clear routing rule: this tool enumerates albums, and photo-level search belongs to `photos`. That covers the main alternative, but there is no explicit 'when to prefer this vs. photo_info/export_photo' style guidance or note on when album listing is the wrong entry point.

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