browse_gallery

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds valuable behavioral context: for non-UI clients, it returns a JSON object with pagination fields and item details (thumbnail, status for pending items). This goes beyond the annotations to fully inform the agent about what to expect.

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 well-structured: first sentence states the core purpose, then details about the gallery view, then the response format for non-UI clients, and finally usage guidance with an explicit alternative. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (pagination, item fields for completed and pending items). It covers all information needed for an agent to use the tool correctly, including how to interpret the output.

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%, but the description still adds meaning by explaining the behavior of the `origin` parameter: it defines what 'generated', 'imported', and 'all' include, and clarifies that pending generations count as 'generated'. This provides context not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb 'browse' and resource 'generated images in an interactive visual gallery'. It explains that it shows thumbnails filtered by origin. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool `show_image` by explicitly mentioning the alternative for viewing a single image at full resolution.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use `browse_gallery` to see all images; use `show_image(uri="image://{image_id}/view")` to view one image at full resolution.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative. Additionally, it explains the default filter for generated images and the options for imported or all.

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