photo_info

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it reads the library at rest via osxphotos, requires Full Disk Access, never returns image data or paths, and documents behavior for unknown, Recently Deleted, and Hidden ids.

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 dense but front-loaded: it leads with the core lookup purpose, then field coverage, id sourcing, permission requirements, and error behavior. Every clause adds actionable information, with no filler.

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?

Given one required parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description supplies the missing operational context: id provenance, accepted id format, required Full Disk Access, non-return of media bytes, and error conditions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single `id` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: it states the id source ('photos'), accepts the legacy `<UUID>/L0/001` format, and clarifies that unknown or Recently Deleted ids raise.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Metadata for one photo by id', then enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this lookup from sibling media tools by emphasizing it returns metadata only, never image bytes, thumbnails, or file paths.

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?

It explains where ids come from ('photos'), accepts the legacy `<UUID>/L0/001` form, and gives explicit exclusion/error conditions: unknown or Recently Deleted ids raise, Hidden ids are refused. It also names the required permission, Full Disk Access rather than Automation, which is critical before invocation.

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