view_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Read'), returns base64-encoded data and MIME type, has directory restrictions, streams files efficiently, and supports specific image formats. However, it doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics.

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 well-structured with clear sections (SUPPORTED FORMATS, USAGE, Args), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, formats, and behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return values (e.g., structure of the base64 data).

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains that 'path' is an 'Absolute or relative path to the image file within allowed directories,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and constraints beyond the basic schema type.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Read an image file') and resources ('image file'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_feedback' by focusing on file reading rather than feedback retrieval. It specifies the exact action and resource type.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool ('to read and encode image files for analysis, display, or processing'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. The 'Only works within allowed directories' constraint offers some usage boundaries.

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