gallery_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return format for all operations, explains the search matching logic (all tokens must match, case-insensitive), mentions pagination via next_page_token, and notes the 'polite bound' on upstream requests through max_pages. It does not discuss error scenarios or auth requirements, but for a read-only gallery exploration tool this coverage is strong.

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 clear sections (RATIONALE, Return Format, Examples). It is longer than strictly necessary – the RATIONALE could be trimmed – but it front-loads the core purpose and provides concrete operation examples that aid understanding. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse the essential information without excessive verbosity.

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 parameters, 4 operations), the description is thorough: it defines each operation, provides a precise return format template, and gives example calls for every operation. It explains pagination and search semantics. Even though an output schema exists, the description still covers the return structure in text, ensuring an agent knows what to expect without needing to infer from code. 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?

Schema coverage is 100% – every parameter has a detailed description in the input schema. The tool description adds illustrative example calls and hints at operation-specific usage, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The examples are helpful for context but do not compensate for missing parameter details; the schema already does that work. A score of 3 is baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'explores the public Marble community gallery' and enumerates four distinct operations (browse, world, prompts, search). It includes specific resource and scope (community gallery at marble.worldlabs.ai) and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_world_* and show_world_card by focusing on gallery exploration rather than generation or display.

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 through the operation-specific examples and the rationale that consolidates multiple gallery tasks into one tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_worlds, get_world, show_worlds_card, or show_world_card. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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