cy_images_item_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (generates URLs) but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits - no information about whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the URL returns, whether it's a read-only operation, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise - a single Korean sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted verbiage and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. It could potentially benefit from slightly more context, but as a standalone statement it's efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated URL looks like, whether it's a direct image link or requires additional processing, what authentication might be needed, or how this relates to the sibling character URL tool. For even a simple tool, more context would be helpful.

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 100% with the single parameter 'itemId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid itemId, format requirements, or where to obtain itemIds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the purpose as 'generates item image URL' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cy_images_character_url' which appears to serve a similar function for character images rather than item images. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from other image-related tools like 'cy_images_character_url'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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