Get an image direction

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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses read-only behavior ('writes nothing to disk'), access control ('Free records are public; a Pro record returns 403'), and error handling without leaking payload. This exceeds the typical level of behavioral detail.

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 opens with the core action, then usage context, then safety/auth details. Each sentence adds distinct information, with no redundant 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to use it, its output formats, and its safety/auth profile. It gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly without further research.

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?

The schema already provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. It adds semantic value by mapping output formats to use cases: 'Markdown for reading and briefing or JSON for programmatic use,' which helps agents select the right format.

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 tool retrieves one image direction's full implementation export, with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource. It distinguishes from listing siblings by specifying 'one' and the export format options.

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 explicit usage context: 'This is what you follow when generating, sourcing, or art-directing imagery for the project.' It also clarifies it pairs with the design kit rather than replacing it, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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