arcane_get_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get details' but doesn't mention read-only nature, error behavior (e.g., if image not found), authentication requirements, or return format. This is insufficient for a tool in a Docker-like API 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no redundant phrasing, and every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately sized.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description should explain more about what 'details' includes, how the environmentId relates to the image, and what the response structure looks like. It is too vague for an agent to know what to expect, making the tool under-specified.

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 input schema covers both parameters with simple descriptions ('The image ID', 'The environment ID'), providing 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details for a specific image, using a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_images and pull_image, though it doesn't specify what kind of details (metadata, status, etc.) or that it's by ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_images for listing all images or get_container for container details. There is no mention of prerequisite steps or typical use cases.

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