get_comment_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does so well by disclosing the threshold-based auto-download logic, the skip behavior below 5%, the contact-sheet composition, and the caveat that thumbnails are only for locating and not for citing numbers or conclusions. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 text is front-loaded with the purpose, then the threshold rules, then the usage workflow and the thumbnail caveat. It is compact and nearly every sentence carries useful information, though the formatting is slightly dense.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow, the output shape at a conceptual level, and the key caveat about using original images. Its main omission is that bvid and comments remain semantically undocumented.

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 compensate. It explains top_n=0 and its threshold-based behavior in detail, including the 15% and 5% rules. However, it does not explain bvid or the comments parameter, and it leaves positive top_n values unexplained.

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 that this tool handles comment-section images: it judges them against a threshold, downloads them in parallel, creates a numbered contact sheet, and returns a grid-number list. That is a specific verb-and-resource purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_comments or grab_frames.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool and how to use it: check the contact sheet first, then read the original images by #number. It also explains the automatic threshold behavior when top_n=0. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a competing alternative.

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