vk_photos_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Access level: read' but does not address pagination, rate limits, response size, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains unnecessary self-referential info (tool name, section) but is not verbose. Could be slightly improved by removing redundancy and adding key parameter context.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the tool's filtering, sorting, pagination, and extended fields, relying solely on schema descriptions for semantic understanding.

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 covers 80% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it does not contradict or detract.

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 it returns a list of a user's or community's photos and identifies it as a read operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vk_photos_get_all or vk_photos_get_by_id, nor does it mention filtering capabilities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when to prefer this over similar tools, or exclusions.

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