list_references

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 only states that the tool lists images; it does not mention side effects, return format, ordering, or whether it reads from the filesystem. For a read-only tool, this missing context is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it both concise and structurally clear.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description provides the core scope. However, it leaves out details like what the output list contains (paths or names) or any behavior around the group folder. For such a minimal tool, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description adds meaning by mentioning 'optionally one group folder', which maps to the 'group' parameter. This clarifies that the parameter is optional and represents a folder. However, it does not explain the expected format (e.g., relative path or folder name), so it is only minimally adequate.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource: reference guide images under output/refs, with an optional group folder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_reference or add_reference, which have different actions.

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 implies usage as a listing tool for reference images, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings (e.g., add_reference or view_reference). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, only the core action.

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