image_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the image is 'automatically downscaled and recompressed to protect context,' which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains that region is applied before scaling. This is transparent about the main processing steps, though it does not mention error handling, supported formats, or output format. The core behavior is well disclosed.

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 highly efficient. The opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by a sentence on the automatic downscaling behavior (key for context), then the region usage hint, and finally a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important details (purpose and scaling) are front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary information: input source type, all parameter details with ranges and defaults, the special region behavior, and the fact that output is model-visible content. The agent can correctly call this tool without needing further clarification. The only minor omission is a note on supported file formats, but that is reasonable to assume.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter (source, max_dimension, quality, region) is explained with purpose, format, ranges, and defaults. For example, region is described as 'x,y,w,h' in original pixel coordinates, and max_dimension has a range (64-4096). This far exceeds what the schema provides and gives the agent complete knowledge for invocation.

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 'View an image (local path or URL) as model-visible content.' It specifies the verb, resource, and unique behavior (making content visible to the model). This distinguishes it from siblings like image_info (metadata), image_ocr (text extraction), and image_transform (editing) without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (to view an image) and provides guidance for the 'region' parameter to zoom into details at full resolution. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the clear purpose and sibling context make selection straightforward. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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