List Image3 prompt categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read-only' confirms rather than adds. It does add valuable context: 'free' signals no cost, and 'with counts' hints at the return shape beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single compact sentence followed by a short phrase. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds information.

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 optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by the mention of categories with counts, though a bit more detail about the language parameter's effect would make it fully complete.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that language is optional and affects which categories are listed, but it does not explain what each enum value means, what 'all' includes, or what exactly the counts represent.

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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'Image3 prompt categories', and adds the output detail 'with counts' plus an optional language filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_prompts, get_prompt, and build_prompt_brief.

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 use case is implied: if you need to enumerate prompt categories with counts, this is the tool. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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