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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: JPEG downscaling with maxSize/default 1024, a JSON list prefix before images, an 8-image/size-budget cap, and a skipped list with reasons for failures. It also notes zero credit cost, which is valuable operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and selection modes, then return/limit behavior. It is somewhat dense with five sentences, but nearly every clause carries information none of the structured fields provide.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden: it explains the return shape (JSON list plus images with size and media id), downscaling, caps, and failure reporting. An agent has everything needed to call 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%, so the schema already documents each id parameter and maxSize. The description largely mirrors that mapping (shot's selected panel, node's current image output) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (look at/view) and resource (images in the project) and enumerates the three selection modes (mediaIds, shotIds, nodeIds), which cleanly distinguishes it from write-side siblings like import_media and add_reference_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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context: reading imported boards/pages and verifying a generated panel before telling the user it is right. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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