List product photos

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description states that passing brandId 'switches this key's active brand like use_brand,' which is a side effect modifying the tool's active state. This contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, which implies the tool does not modify any state. Thus the description directly contradicts the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded, covering the main purpose, scope, cost, return value, and usage trigger in four sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy, making it efficient for agents to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return type (url + label), explicitly mentions cost (FREE), explains the scope, and addresses the side-effect of brand switching. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes the brandId parameter with 100% coverage, the description adds important semantics beyond the schema: it explains that passing brandId also switches the active brand for the key, similar to use_brand. This additional behavioral detail is not present in the schema and helps agents understand the side effect.

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 lists already-saved product photos, including the brand's product library and app-store screens, and notes it surfaces photos from other creations. It distinguishes itself from set_product_image by explicitly saying to call it before that tool, giving a specific verb and resource.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call it before set_product_image to see the existing photos you can reuse.' Also clarifies when to pass brandId and that it switches the active brand like use_brand, giving clear context on how to use the tool relative to siblings.

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