Get Page Photos

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Lists' verb is consistent. The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the type parameter semantics ('uploaded' vs 'tagged'), which goes beyond the schema's bare enum. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (the 'after' parameter) or response structure, which could be important for large photo sets.

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 concise sentence followed by a structured args list. It front-loads the purpose and packs essential parameter meanings into a compact format. There is no redundancy, and it remains readable and scannable.

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, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the main parameters but lacks details on pagination (after parameter) and response format (though schema covers response_format). It also doesn't mention any use-case distinctions from siblings. Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining page_id, type, and limit. It gives meaningful context for the core parameters. However, it omits the 'after' pagination token entirely, and response_format is only covered in the schema. For the key parameters, it adds good value.

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 states 'Lists photos uploaded to a Facebook Page' which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from video/album tools by its explicit focus on photos. However, the description only mentions 'uploaded' while the type parameter also includes 'tagged', making the opening sentence slightly incomplete. Still, the overall purpose is clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_get_page_albums or meta_get_page_videos. The description does explain the difference between 'uploaded' and 'tagged' types, but this is intra-tool guidance, not cross-tool. An agent would have to infer from the name that this is for photos, with no direction on exclusion criteria.

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