Browse Gallery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds significant behavioral context: it reads from the 'scratch directory', returns thumbnail previews, and describes the response shape for non-UI clients including pending vs. completed items. This goes well beyond what annotations cover.

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 efficiently structured: an opening summary sentence, then response-format details for non-UI clients, then explicit usage guidance. Every sentence contributes either behavioral transparency or usage direction. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, but rich annotations, the description covers the response format, filtering behavior, and usage notes. It provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly, including how pending items behave. The context is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema already explains the 'origin' parameter with enum and default. The description adds a valuable nuance: 'a pending generation always counts as generated', which is not in the schema. This extra semantic detail justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as browsing all generated images in an interactive gallery, with a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('generated images'). It distinguishes itself from show_image by explicitly stating 'Use browse_gallery to see all images; use show_image... to view one image at full resolution.' This provides clear differentiation from a key sibling.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to see all images') and points to an alternative (show_image for a single full-resolution view). It also gives context about non-UI clients receiving a JSON response, which helps agents decide how to invoke and parse the result. This exceeds the high calibration example's guidance.

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