cc98_get_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It states that the tool returns the image binary ('图片本体的') that can be viewed directly. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any other behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits). The information is correct but minimal.

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, each contributing essential information: the first declares purpose, the second explains input source and output format. No redundant or extraneous text. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, and return type. It lacks details like error conditions or image format, but given low complexity, it is largely complete. The return type is explained despite missing output schema.

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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'url' is described in the schema with '图片地址（来自帖子内容中的 [图片: …]）'. The description reiterates this source, adding some extra context but not significant new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 applies since schema covers the parameter fully.

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 specifies the verb '下载并查看' (download and view) and the resource '图片' (image), clearly stating the tool's function. It explicitly ties the URL source to cc98_get_posts output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cc98_get_posts which retrieve post text with image placeholders.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: the url parameter must come from the [图片: …] placeholder in cc98_get_posts output. This gives explicit context on when to use the tool. It does not list alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is adequate for the simple use case.

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