query

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is a read-only query returning a count and photo summaries (UUID, filename, date, etc.). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but the return structure is clearly described, and the tool's read-only nature is implied. A score of 4 reflects strong transparency despite minor omissions.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary use case and a clear list of filters, followed by return format and exclusion criteria. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (16 optional parameters), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filter types, return format, and when to use alternatives. No gaps are evident.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter categories and notes the UUID parameter for specific lookups, but adds little beyond the existing schema property descriptions. It groups concepts usefully but does not enrich parameter semantics significantly.

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 finds photos matching one or more filters (album, keyword, person, date range, etc.) and returns a list of matches. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-photo and list-* by noting when to use each, fulfilling the 'specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings' criteria.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, listing specific scenarios and naming alternative tools (get-photo, list-albums, list-keywords, list-persons). This satisfies 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' at the highest level.

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