list_images

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and explicitly declares 'Read-only' and enumerates the output fields. It does not mention potential edge cases such as no images or file-not-found, but its non-destructive nature and return scope are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences contain no filler: the first packs the resource and all returned fields, the second handles routing to an alternative and the read-only nature. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 operation with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies scope, distinguishes from a sibling, and notes safety. The only gap is the undocumented file_path parameter, but the overall tool behavior and relationship to dependent tools are clear.

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 description never mentions file_path or how it should be specified. The sole parameter is a bare string in the schema, so the agent gets no guidance on path format or semantics from either source.

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 'Every inline image' and enumerates exactly what is returned (index, display size, native pixels, DPI, alt text, media part path), making the tool's function and scope unambiguous. It explicitly names check_image_resolution as a distinct alternative, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

It states the primary use (listing inline images) and gives a direct routing rule: for print-quality checks, use check_image_resolution instead. It also tells the agent that the returned index is meant to feed resize_image, replace_image, and set_image_alt_text.

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