list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return shape ('matching images with metadata'), which signals a safe read, but omits ordering, pagination/truncation behavior, and whether the default limit of 20 is silently applied — relevant for a list tool that can return many rows.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded before the return statement. The leading Chinese label '检索图片：' is mildly redundant with the English text but does not obstruct scanning.

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?

With all five optional parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema to explain, the description covers what the tool is and roughly what it returns. The only real gap is list behavior (ordering, pagination), which is minor for a low-risk read tool.

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%, so every parameter (tags AND-logic, tool enum, limit bounds/default, month format, keyword case-insensitivity) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter axes at a high level, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search and list generated images') plus the three filter axes (tags, date, keywords). Against siblings that all generate or mutate images (generate_image, edit_image, create_variation), it is clearly the retrieval counterpart, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for finding existing images rather than creating them. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of combining filters, and no routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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