list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and return format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent fully about behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the others provide essential parameter and output details without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return format, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's adequate for a simple list operation.

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 adds meaning by explaining 'compartment_id' as 'OCID of the compartment to list images from,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title 'Compartment Id.' However, it doesn't cover all potential nuances (e.g., format or validation), but with only one parameter, this is adequate for a baseline near 4.

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 purpose: 'List all compute images in a compartment.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('compute images'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_image', the scope ('all' in a compartment) implies a listing operation versus a single retrieval. However, it doesn't directly compare to sibling tools, so it's not 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_image' (for retrieving a single image) or other listing tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is minimal.

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