get_article_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'List' but doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, limited in count, or what happens if the article_id is invalid. Lacking such operational details, it's significantly under-specified for an unannotated 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to cover behavior and parameter semantics. It provides just enough to be minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description would ideally clarify both parameters. It hints at the article_id (the 'given article') but says nothing about response_format (enum json/markdown) or its default. It partially compensates but misses half the parameters, making it only marginally helpful.

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?

Clear verb (List) and resource (photos attached to a given article). It distinguishes itself from photo-level tools like get_photo or search_photos by scoping to a single article. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_photos or get_article, so it falls short of the highest differentiation.

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 implies usage when you have an article_id and want its photos, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like search_photos or get_photo. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer the right context.

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