Get Page Photo Albums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond a basic 'lists': it omits pagination (via 'after' parameter), response format options, or any note about result size or limitations. For a listing tool, pagination behavior is a significant missing disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and listing parameters in a clear, readable format. It uses minimal words without unnecessary detail. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing two parameters entirely, though that is not a structural flaw per se.

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?

The tool is a simple listing operation, but the description does not cover essential operational details like pagination (the 'after' parameter) or the output format control (response_format). With no output schema and low parameter coverage, an agent would lack key information needed to make correct calls, especially for paginated lists. The description is adequate for a first call but incomplete for robust usage.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning to page_id ('Facebook Page ID') and limit ('Max results (1–100, default 20)'), which are already partially documented in the schema (limit has default/min/max). It completely omits the 'after' parameter (used for pagination) and does not describe response_format, despite schema coverage being only 25%. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'Lists photo albums on a Facebook Page' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like meta_get_page_photos (which lists photos, not albums) and meta_get_page_videos. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to choose albums over photos or when pagination is needed. It simply states the function without any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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