List agent avatars

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: `url` is a short-lived link and is omitted for an uploaded avatar still being scanned for malware. This explains a field that may be unexpectedly absent, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what is listed before covering how to use `path` and the caveat about `url`. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully spelled out, and the one optional parameter is schema-documented. The description covers the non-obvious gaps (scope, how to reuse `path`, transient `url`), making it sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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% and the single parameter (X-Orchestra-Account-Id) is fully documented in the schema; the description says nothing about it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description does clarify the semantics of returned `path`/`url` fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the avatars an agent can use') and immediately narrows scope to two sources: Orchestra's stock avatars and workspace-uploaded ones. No sibling tool in the list deals with avatars, so the agent can place it unambiguously.

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?

Gives actionable downstream context: 'Pass an entry's `path` as `avatar_path` when creating or updating an agent,' which ties it to create_agent/update_agent workflows. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative, but the usage context is clear.

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