graphic_ls

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what the listing covers: all animated graphics, their capture currency, and overlay placement. It does not describe ordering, filtering, or result shape, though an output schema exists.

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 short, but it is a grammatically awkward fragment rather than a clear sentence like 'Lists all animated graphics...'. It has no wasted words, yet the missing verb and unusual phrasing reduce clarity.

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?

For a low-complexity listing tool with one optional parameter fully described in the schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential result content. The main missing piece is usage guidance, which is already accounted for in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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% and the path parameter is documented in detail, including bound-project behavior, relative resolution, and refusal cases. The tool description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description identifies the resource (animated graphics in the project) and the key reported aspects: whether each capture is current and which overlays place it. The verb is only implied by the tool name and the 'Every...' phrasing rather than stated explicitly, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like graphic_library or graphic_templates.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or sibling comparisons. Among the many graphic-related siblings, an agent gets no help selecting this tool. The path parameter description gives operational context but not usage criteria.

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