apple_photos_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only metadata is returned and image data is not exported, which is genuine context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, result shape, or the effect of scoping to an album.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the read-only guarantee, with no redundant text. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter and usage detail.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should carry more of the load. It covers the mutation-safety question well but omits pagination semantics and result format, so it is only marginally adequate for a three-parameter listing tool.

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 not meet it. The phrase 'library or album' loosely gestures at albumId, but limit and offset — the pagination controls — are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 ('list') and resource ('Photos library or album media metadata'), making clear it returns catalog entries rather than binaries. It is reasonably distinguishable from apple_photos_list_albums and apple_photos_get, but does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over apple_photos_search, apple_photos_get, or apple_photos_list_albums. The 'read-only' framing implies a listing use case but leaves the agent to infer routing on its own.

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