scene_asset_images

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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. It adds real value beyond the annotations: photos are normalized to a similar scale, so visual look and true sizeMetres must be judged separately, and failed captures are reported as having no image. It doesn't say how images are delivered (inline/base64 vs. reference), a minor gap.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by importance: what it returns, when to use it, how to interpret the photos, and the failure case. No filler; the only redundancy is the trailing 'Read-only' already covered by annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, interpretation guidance, and the missing-image edge case. What's absent is the 12-id batch limit and the image transport mechanism, both of which matter when actually invoking it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it does explain that ids are asset ids from scene_search_assets and that each is echoed back with name/group/size. However, it omits the schema's hard constraints (1–12 items, positive integers), which an agent could violate when batching a long result list.

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 concrete verb and resource ('returns a small photo of each asset id') and names its upstream sibling scene_search_assets, which is exactly how an agent would obtain the ids. It is clearly distinguishable from catalog/search siblings like scene_search_assets and image_catalog.

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 explicit selection scenarios: disambiguating assets that share a name (the 'dozens of 乔木' example) and inspecting unfamiliar assets, plus the precondition that ids come from scene_search_assets. An agent knows both when to call it and what input to feed it.

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