view_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact return fields, the fact that the returned path is directly usable by export_images, and the runtime prerequisite. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or read-only guarantees, but those are minor for a simple browse operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, a useful integration note, and the prerequisite. No filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It also states the necessary runtime prerequisite and the relationship to export_images. The only omissions are minor behavioral details like sort order and error behavior when the plugin is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need only add value over the schema. It adds the fact that filter and rating_min can be combined ('or both'), but otherwise restates the schema's descriptions. This is a slight but not substantial addition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse photos in the user's darktable library'), names the core filtering capabilities, and states the returned fields. This clearly separates it from siblings like rate_photos, import_batch, or export_images, and even points downstream to export_images.

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 states the operation context (browsing/filtering before export) and the requirement that darktable be running with the plugin installed. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the export_images reference and filter description give clear usage context.

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