invokeai_gallery

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does add useful behavior details: a full return format with 'success', 'operation', 'data', 'message', and 'images' arrays, plus a note that URLs are absolute and usable in chat/browser. However, it does not disclose consequences of destructive operations such as 'delete' (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements) or any rate limits/auth caveats. This is a noticeable gap given the tool includes mutations.

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 with a concise summary line followed by rationale, return format, examples, and notes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The rationale and return format are useful, though the description is somewhat long (over 150 words) and could be tightened without losing value. Overall, it is efficient and each section serves a purpose.

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's complexity (7 params, 8 operations, no annotations), the description provides substantial context: a return format, examples for three operations, and a note about URL behavior. It does not explicitly explain pagination behavior (offset/limit) or error handling beyond the 'message' field, but the schema covers parameters and the examples clarify common usage. The description is reasonably complete for a multi-action tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does include one example that demonstrates using 'operation', 'limit', 'query', and 'image_name' in context. This confirms the mapping but does not enrich understanding of parameter values or formats.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Browse, search, download, and manage generated images.' It explicitly names the gallery feed and per-image actions, and the required 'operation' enum (list, search, get, metadata, download, delete, star, unstar) clarifies the scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like invokeai_generate or queue management, which handle different resources.

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 clear context: the gallery is a 'single searchable feed' with per-image actions, and the rationale explains why one tool covers both discovery and mutation. Examples show when to use list, search, and download operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., show_invokeai_gallery_card) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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