获取图片信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes a download URL/path, which is useful, but it does not discuss failure behavior or other return characteristics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the key return information in parentheses. No wasted words.

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 read-only single-required-parameter lookup with annotations and full schema parameter coverage, the description is sufficient for selection. Since there is no output schema, it appropriately mentions the main return content (download URL/path); the optional file_id remains only in the schema, a minor gap.

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%, so parameters are already documented; the description merely reinforces file as the identifier. It adds no detail about the optional file_id role, so a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 names a clear action and resource: get detailed information about an image by its file identifier, including a download URL/path. It is image-specific, which separates it from generic get_file/get_record, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 usage context is implied: use it when you have an image file value or file:/// path and need image details. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary against get_file.

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