list_photos

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 reveals the return type (photo URLs) and mentions pagination via the page parameter, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid school_id. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is inferred.

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 very concise: two sentences followed by a simple list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key relationship to download_file. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it omits details like the maximum page size, ordering, or how to handle the case of no photos. The reference to download_file is helpful, but for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, more completeness is expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides basic explanations: 'school_id: School ID' and 'page: Page number (default: 1)'. These are nearly tautological and add little meaning beyond the parameter names. The description fails to explain the role of page in pagination or any constraints.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'photos for a school', and mentions 'Returns photo URLs that can be used with download_file', making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling list tools like list_files.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving photo URLs for downloading, but it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like list_files. It gives a basic use case but lacks exclusions.

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