list_images

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits such as the latency for archived versions ('takes up to a few minutes') and the defaulting behavior of the version parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively, though it could mention if the list is paginated or has size limits.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured, with the main action upfront, followed by sibling tool reference, and version handling details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers usage context well. It explains the version parameter's behavior and an edge case (archived version latency). A minor gap is not stating whether the returned list is complete or paginated, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for the 'version' parameter (e.g., about archive tokens and release selectors) beyond the schema's brief note, but does not add new info for 'spec_id'.

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 action ('List embedded images in a 3GPP specification') and specifies what it returns ('image names, MIME types, and whether they are viewable by LLMs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_image' by noting that 'list_images' lists images while 'get_image' retrieves a specific one.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use get_image to retrieve a specific image.' It also explains how to handle versions, including past archived versions that may have a delay. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or other exclusions beyond the sibling differentiation.

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