list_plan_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates what information is returned (size, resolution, references, orphans) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it has side effects. The listing nature implies read-only, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely terse, consisting of a single noun phrase. While concise, it lacks structural completeness and prioritizes brevity over utility. It is under-specification rather than good conciseness, omitting essential information that an agent needs.

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?

With one required parameter that is not explained, no annotations, and an output schema present but not described, the tool is incomplete for an agent to call correctly. The lack of parameter semantics and any usage context makes it inadequate even for a getter/list tool. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input documentation.

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 single parameter 'handle' is entirely undocumented. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the meaning of 'handle' but does not. The phrase 'from Content/' hints at a location but does not clarify what the handle refers to (e.g., a plan identifier, a path, a UID). This is a critical gap.

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 states that the tool lists plan sublays from Content/ and returns size, resolution, references, and orphan status. This is a specific verb (list) and resource, and it implies a listing operation distinct from get_plan_image or extract_plan_image. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_plan_image, extract_plan_image, or find_on_plans. No use cases, exclusions, or conditions are provided. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and fragment.

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