lr_list_albums

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that matching is case-insensitive and that results are tagged [folder] vs [project], but says nothing about whether this is a safe read-only call, pagination/limits, or auth requirements. Since an output schema exists, the return-value gap is acceptable, but the operational context is thin.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core behavior leads, then query semantics, then the tag convention. Every line carries information; only the tag sentence feels slightly detached from the rest.

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 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and matching rules, but leaves include_folders unexplained and provides no behavioral context (permissions, result size). Adequate, not 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'query' well (case-insensitive substring of the path, with concrete examples), but 'include_folders' is never mentioned — the [folder] tagging hints at folders without clarifying what toggling the flag does. One of two parameters is effectively documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List albums') and pins down the output form ('Folder / Album' paths with their ids), plus the distinction between folders and server-created project albums. It is clearly the read/listing counterpart to the create/add/delete album siblings, though it never names an alternative.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus lr_list_photos, lr_view_photos, or the album mutation tools. The query examples imply a browse/filter workflow, but the agent must infer that this is the discovery step for album ids; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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