list_image_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses return fields, scope, and an important exclusion (global_sections). It does not explicitly say 'this is a read-only operation,' but the verb 'Find' and the context make that clear. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it stops short of noting pagination or rate-limit behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main purpose and output fields; the second gives a workflow recommendation and a caveat. It is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing return fields (element_id, alt, src, field path). It also ties the tool to a broader workflow and notes the global_sections limitation. It omits pagination/limit behavior, but that is captured in the schema. Given the simplicity of a list operation, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics, but it does align with the 'scope' parameter by mentioning 'pages + global sources.' Since the schema already explains limit, scope, page_id, and only_missing_alt, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('image elements across pages + global sources'), lists key output fields, and explicitly notes that global_sections are excluded. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_page_elements or read_image by framing it as a listing/scan operation.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow directive: 'Use as the first step before generating alt text via vision (read_image) and writing back with set_image_alts.' It also mentions the global_sections read-only limitation, which tells the agent when results will be incomplete and why.

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