view_output

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing downscaling to max_dim and the full-resolution behavior when max_dim is None. It is honest about what it fetches and why the scaling behavior exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it says what the tool is in the first clause and the why behind the behavior in the same breath. Every sentence earns its place, with no repeated information or filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is a bit thin: It leaves filename semantics and the meaning of type/subfolder implicit, and it does not mention how the fetched image is returned to the agent. The source-of-truth pointer to run_workflow/get_run_status outputs helps, but more documentation would improve usability.

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 carries the responsibility for explaining parameters. It only explains max_dim and its resolution behavior. filename, type, and subfolder are left undocumented, and the description does not state how these map to the output refs received from run_workflow/get_run_status. This is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the action ('Fetch a rendered image') and why it is used ('so you and the user can SEE it'). It also anchors the image source to run_workflow/get_run_status outputs, which helps differentiate this viewer from the workflow-management siblings. It does not explicitly name or distinguish a sibling tool, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 implies the intended use: fetch an image after running a workflow and looking at run status output. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as save_output, upload_image, or get_run_status. Some usage context is present, but it is largely implicit.

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