view_output

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: that images are downscaled by default and that refs come from specific tools. No contradiction with annotations; they are consistent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by key usage details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety, the description covers the essential context: source of inputs, scaling behavior. It could mention the output type but is adequate for a simple fetch tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the max_dim parameter. However, it does not detail type, filename, or subfolder in words, though these are self-explanatory from the schema. The added value is moderate.

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 action ('Fetch a rendered image') and the resource ('rendered image' from run_workflow/get_run_status outputs), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or run workflows.

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 indicates when to use the tool (after obtaining refs from run_workflow/get_run_status) and explains the scaling behavior (max_dim parameter). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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