list-albums

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 return fields (title, folder path, photo count, shared status, UUID) and clearly scopes the tool to reading album metadata, implying a non-destructive purpose. However, it doesn't mention edge cases or performance, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, broken into three clear parts: when to use, what it returns, and when not to use. Every sentence carries value, and the critical guidance is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (present). The description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and return values. No additional information is necessary for an agent to use it effectively.

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% — the 'library' parameter has a full description ('Path to a .photoslibrary (default: system Photos library)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Use when: you want the catalog of albums' clearly stating the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives like query, list-folders, and library-info for other use cases.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('to discover exact album names before filtering...' or 'to browse the library's organization') and when not to use, with specific alternative tools and use cases.

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