List moodboards

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those: it returns image counts, includes empty boards, and explains that empty boards are unusable as references. This adds context without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence earns its place: the moodboard concept, the imagine integration, and the empty-board caveat are all operationally relevant. It is informative without being bloated.

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, read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the output concept, the empty-board edge case, and the primary downstream use case. It does not specify exact response format or pagination, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the robust schema and annotations.

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 100%, and the with_images parameter is already well documented with default behavior and a rationale ('a large board is hundreds of URLs'). The description does not add parameter details, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the account's moodboards with how many reference images each holds.' This clearly captures the operation and output scope. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_moodboard by emphasizing the account-level list behavior.

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 provides clear functional context: returned moodboards can be passed to imagine as style references, and boards with zero images cannot be used until populated. It does not explicitly name which sibling tools to use instead in edge cases, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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