lr_view_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully reveal the return format ('JPEG with edits applied') and a hard batch cap of 12, but says nothing about permissions, what happens if more than 12 asset_ids are passed, or error behavior.

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, then the batch limit, then a compact pipe-delimited size legend. No filler, though the size line is tersely formatted and could read more cleanly.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return format, batch limit, and size semantics, which is the core. It still leaves gaps on the origin of asset_ids and on failure modes when the cap is exceeded.

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% and the size field has no enum, so the description is the sole source of valid size values ('thumbnail2x', '640', '1280', '2048') and explains their tradeoff ('small, for scanning many'). It also implies asset_ids is an array bounded at 12, though it never states where those IDs come from.

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 ('Fetch photos as images to look at them') and clarifies the payload is rendered JPEGs, which distinguishes it from metadata-oriented siblings like lr_get_photo and lr_list_photos. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of 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 phrase 'to look at them' implies the use case (visual inspection rather than metadata retrieval or file download), and 'Up to 12 per call' sets a batching constraint. However, it never states when to prefer lr_get_photo or lr_download_photos instead, so usage is only implied.

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