gallery_get_powergrade_stills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds the PowerGrade album scope, which is useful context, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as behavior on missing albums, ordering, or whether it reads from the current album context.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple list tool with one clearly described parameter and an output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient. It lacks only minor context such as error behavior or relationship to current PowerGrade album, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%: the single parameter album_name has a description ('Name of the PowerGrade album.') that fully explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('stills'), and the scope ('PowerGrade album'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool gallery_get_stills. The tool name and description align perfectly, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 for retrieving stills from a PowerGrade album, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of gallery_get_stills or other gallery tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied by the scope.

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