download_doc_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an important constraint: payloads > 2 MiB MUST pass save_path. However, it does not disclose return format, authentication details (beyond the ambiguous 'UAT-first'), or what happens if save_path is omitted for large files, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It is split into two short paragraphs, with the size cap as a separate note. However, the phrase 'UAT-first' is unclear and may confuse agents, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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 tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and the critical size cap. It does not explain the return format or what exactly the model receives, though 'so the model can see it' implies visual access. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on the response would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that image_token comes from get_doc_blocks (block.image.token) and that doc_token scopes the lookup. It also reiterates the save_path requirement for large payloads, reinforcing the schema's constraint.

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 ('Download an image embedded in a docx document') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_message_resource by focusing on docx embedded images, using language like 'so the model can see it.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: pass the image_token from get_doc_blocks, and optionally the doc/wiki/URL token to scope the lookup. This implies the workflow and conditions for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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