photographi_rank_photographs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses high concurrency, limit of 100, fast_mode performance trade-off (4-8x faster vs. forensic precision), and that it returns detailed metrics. This is thorough for a non-destructive read tool.

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 with five sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then adds details and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 8 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers main purpose, use cases, concurrency, and limit. It does not mention pagination (offset) or subject detection/model_size, but these are secondary and schema covers them. Still, it is fairly complete.

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 high (88%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the limit parameter (high concurrency, up to 100 per call) but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool ranks photos by technical quality and returns the top_n best images. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool photographi_analyze_folder by suggesting the latter for 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 states ideal use cases: burst sequences or finding hero shots. Mentions high concurrency and default limit of 100 images per call. Provides explicit alternative: use photographi_analyze_folder for full folder analysis.

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