get_user_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the endpoint is a GET request and returns a static image, and that it is proxied, but it fails to mention authentication requirements, side effects, response format (binary image), or the fact that it is read-only. The misleading 'recipe slug' phrase undermines trust.

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 short but includes the title again and the full route path, which is unnecessary. It has some redundancy. The key information (proxied route) is present, but the structure could be tightened by removing the route and clarifying parameters. It is not overly verbose but could be better organized.

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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the user image, how user_id and file_name relate to users, or what the expected output (binary image) looks like. The erroneous recipe slug mention further detracts from completeness. An agent would need to infer too much.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It incorrectly states 'takes in a recipe slug' while the schema requires user_id and file_name. No explanation of what these parameters represent or how to obtain them is provided. This is misleading and adds no useful semantic meaning.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'User Image' indicate a retrieval operation, but the description mentions 'takes in a recipe slug' which contradicts the actual parameters (user_id, file_name). This inconsistency reduces clarity and could confuse an agent about what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'update_user_image'.

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 states the route is proxied and should not hit the API in production, providing a usage constraint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_recipe_img' or 'get_recipe_asset'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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