list_images

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does assert 'Read-only', which is useful and consistent with the schema. However, it omits notable side effects documented only in the schema — that without editId a temporary edit is opened and deleted — and says nothing about permissions or failure modes for a tool that mutates edit state as a side effect.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the key optional-parameter rule. Every clause conveys information an 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?

For a four-parameter listing tool with a decently documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the main optional-parameter behavior, and the shape of returned image objects. The remaining gap is the edit-context side effect and any notion of result volume, which are minor for a list operation.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on imageType by defining what omission means (list every type), a gap the schema leaves because that property has no description, but it adds nothing about editId's scope or the language tag's tag matching.

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 the images'), the scoping axes (one type, one language), and even the returned fields (id, sha256, preview url). It reads clearly as a read-only listing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as delete_image or replace_images.

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 gives one concrete usage rule — omit imageType to enumerate every type — which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over replace_images/delete_image or when to supply editId to inspect uncommitted changes, so guidance remains implied for the main alternatives.

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