list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the directory parameter but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'List' returns (e.g., file paths, metadata, pagination), error handling, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves key operational details unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output expectations, which are needed for effective agent operation despite the simple context.

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 100%, with the parameter 'directory' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the directory contains 'generated images', which is already suggested by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 action ('List') and resource ('generated images'), specifying the scope as 'in the specified directory'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generate_image' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling beyond the different verb, missing a direct comparison statement.

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 minimal guidance, stating only the basic context ('in the specified directory'). It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or provide any exclusions. With a sibling tool available, this lack of comparative guidance is a significant gap.

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