List reference uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool lists images under a specific path and that they serve as inputs for generation, providing minor behavioral context beyond annotations. No mention of pagination, sorting, or access requirements.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, zero waste. Essential information front-loaded. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description omits many contextual details: what fields the list returns, ordering, filtering capabilities, or any confirmation of the operation's effect. The agent lacks sufficient information to fully understand the tool's output.

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% for the single parameter (project). The description does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or relationship to the listed images. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but fails to add any parameter-level semantics.

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 lists reference/source images under media/uploads/ and notes they are inputs for generation. It specifies the verb (list) and resource (reference images) distinctly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_media.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_media or search_media. The description implies usage for viewing generation inputs, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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