retrieve_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that results differ by image type (custom images include download status), but says nothing about permissions or error behavior on an unknown id.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource in the first clause, and the whole thing is two short lines. The second sentence, 'Get details about a specific image,' is a verbatim restatement of the opening and earns no space, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only shortfall is the absence of guidance on routing to retrieve_image_list or the other image tooling.

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 are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only restates that lookup is 'by its id' and adds nothing about the optional x-trace-id header.

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 and resource ('Get details about a specific image by its id') with the underlying GET path, which clearly separates it from retrieve_image_list and the create/update/delete image siblings. It also scopes the resource ('standard or custom image'), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: you call it when you have an imageId and need details. The note that custom images also expose download status hints at a use case, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or pointer to retrieve_image_list for discovery.

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