photographi-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it moves files to a subfolder, processes images in batches (100 per call default), supports pagination, and offers different modes ('move', 'xmp', 'both'). It also hints at performance implications with 'fast_mode'. However, it lacks details on error handling or permissions required.

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, followed by specific details in clear, bullet-like sentences. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main functionality, parameters, and usage context. However, it could benefit from mentioning prerequisites (e.g., folder permissions) or linking to sibling tools for better integration, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 schema description coverage is high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the threshold logic (images above/below 0.4), default processing limit, and pagination use, which complements the schema. It does not fully detail all parameters like 'enable_subject_detection', but provides enough context for effective use.

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 the specific action ('culls low-quality images by moving them'), identifies the resource ('images'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'photographi_rank_photographs' and 'photographi_threshold_cull' by specifying the movement action and threshold-based filtering. It goes beyond a simple restatement of the name.

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 context for when to use this tool (culling low-quality images based on a threshold) and mentions pagination for batch processing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as how it differs from 'photographi_threshold_cull'.

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