image_ls

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what the listing contains (provenance, size, cues/overlays), which goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent anticipate the result shape.

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?

A single sentence that is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase contributes: scope, provenance, size, and placement context.

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 simple read-only list tool, the combination of a clear one-line description, a fully documented optional parameter, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 single optional path parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema. The tool description does not add 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 clearly identifies the tool as listing every still in the project and enumerates the returned information (source, size, placing cues/overlays). It is distinguishable from image_add/image_rm and graphic_ls, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'List'.

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 phrase 'in the project' implies this is for querying project stills, and the schema explains path resolution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling list tools such as graphic_ls, list_media, or cue_ls, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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