photos_list_album_photos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: authentication requirement, return format as [{nodeUid}], and a critical path constraint. It also warns that nodeUid is not suitable for add/remove operations, which is behavioral information not present in annotations or schema.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second covers auth and return value, and the third provides an important constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value format, the required path prefix, authentication, and a relevant warning about using Drive paths for mutations. The annotations and sibling context round out the picture, so there are no significant gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter albumPath, and the schema already includes the description 'Must start with /albums/' and an example. The tool description repeats this constraint but does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List the photos in a Proton Photos album.' It specifies the resource (photos in an album) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like photos_list_albums (which lists albums, not their contents). The return format is also mentioned, further clarifying the purpose.

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 provides clear context: requires authentication, albumPath must start with /albums/, and returns nodeUids. It also gives guidance about related operations ('To add or remove photos, use their Drive path under /photos/'), which implicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool for mutations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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