lr_list_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses sort order and the exact output line format, but never mentions the result-count cap or pagination behavior, even though a limit parameter with default 100 exists. A read-only listing tool needs at least that much.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight per-parameter glossary and a one-line output format; nearly every clause carries information. The parameter block reads as a run-on list, but nothing is wasted.

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 10-parameter filter tool with no annotations, the description covers nine parameters plus ordering and return format, which is close to complete. The single gap is the limit parameter and its default, leaving silent truncation behavior unexplained.

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, and it largely does: it gives date formats for captured_after/before, the 1-5 rating range, the 'pick'/'reject' flag values, and case-insensitive substring semantics for camera/lens/filename. Only limit (default 100) is left undocumented.

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 photos matching filters') and adds the default ordering ('oldest capture first'). It does not differentiate itself from the ambiguous sibling lr_view_photos, so an agent must still guess which of the two to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied through the album_id note ('omit to search the whole catalog (then narrow it with captured_after)'), which is a helpful narrowing hint. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lr_view_photos or lr_get_photo, and no exclusions.

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