List Doc Images

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists exactly what the response will contain and notes the project-context requirement. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying scope and output contents, though pagination or error behavior are not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences contain all essential information: action, resource, output fields, use case, and precondition. The most important scoping information ('inline images', 'orphaned uploads') appears up front, and no words are wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary details: what is listed, what fields are returned, why an agent would use it, and what context must be set beforehand. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'documentationId' as the public Guid, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond associating the parameter with the documentation's inline images. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a precise resource ('a documentation's inline images') and enumerates the returned fields (file name, URL, size, dimensions, reference status). It also ties the tool to a concrete workflow ('find orphaned uploads before calling delete_doc_image'), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_doc_snippets.

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 find orphaned uploads before deleting an image. It also gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires project context (call set_context first)'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool comparison, but the context provided is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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