دیدن تصویر پیوست

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result is something 'you can look at it directly,' implying image content is returned rather than a link or text, which is useful but thin beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource leading and the clarifying parenthetical examples placed efficiently. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple annotated read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. It stops short of naming the file-access alternatives, which is the only notable gap for an agent choosing among many file-related siblings.

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%, so both parameters (file_id and source) are already fully documented, including the fallback syntax for source. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (attached image), reinforced with concrete examples (photo, scanned letter, screenshot) that tell the agent this is a visual rendering tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like mizito_read_file or mizito_get_file_link, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied by 'attached image' and by the source parameter's context strings (conversation/task/letter), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative file-access siblings. The agent must infer that this loads image content rather than text.

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