photographi-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses concurrency capabilities ('Uses high concurrency to process up to 100 images per call'), default limits, performance characteristics ('4-8x faster' vs 'much slower'), and return format ('Returns detailed metrics for each top image'). It doesn't mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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?

Four well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by performance characteristics, ideal use cases, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value and the description is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.

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 (8 parameters, ranking algorithm) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides excellent context. It covers purpose, performance characteristics, use cases, sibling differentiation, and behavioral aspects. With output schema handling return values, no additional completeness is needed.

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 high at 88%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'top_n' and 'limit' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about the ranking algorithm. The schema already documents most parameters well.

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 ('Ranks photos by technical quality'), resource ('photos'), and output ('returns the top_n best images'). It distinguishes from sibling photographi_analyze_folder by specifying this tool focuses on ranking and returning top images rather than full folder analysis.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('Ideal for burst sequences or finding hero shots') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('For full folder analysis, use photographi_analyze_folder instead'). This gives clear context for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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