List reference uploads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares it's read-only, which the description aligns with ('List'). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., pagination, filtering, or that it only lists images under a specific path). The description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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 a single concise sentence that captures the core purpose without fluff. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or separate sections, which could improve scannability.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it omits details about the parameter's behavior and what the return list contains (e.g., file names, metadata). Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The sole parameter 'project' (type string) is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify its role (e.g., 'filters by project'), but it only mentions the storage path. This leaves the agent uncertain how to use the parameter.

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 uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'reference/source images', clearly indicating the action and resource. It further specifies the location 'under media/uploads/' and the purpose '(inputs for generation)', making the scope unambiguous and distinct from siblings 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?

The description implies usage for listing reference images only, differentiating from broader media listing tools. However, no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or what alternatives exist (e.g., search_media, list_media). The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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