image_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the per-call cap of 8, the accepted formats, per-item partial failure semantics (only that item's reason is written), and the truncation behaviour for large/animated images with a not_returned list requiring a second call. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer elsewhere.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information (sources, formats, cap, failure handling, truncation). It is somewhat run-on as a single semicolon-chained block, and the parenthetical examples could be tightened, but there is no 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description effectively documents the return shape: per-item failure reasons and a not_returned list for truncated batches. Combined with the input sourcing rules and the video/audio fallback, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret partial results.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already lists refs, http(s) URLs and absolute paths, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance the schema lacks — which sibling tools emit which reference form — plus the caveat that video/audio refs are not viewable, which meaningfully guides what to put in the array.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource (查看图片) and immediately distinguishes itself from the many list/detail siblings by naming exactly which of their outputs (short *_ref/*_refs references, image_url addresses, image_file paths) are valid input here. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: list-type tools give refs, detail-type tools give addresses, and both should be passed here; it also states the negative case — video:3 / audio:5 references cannot be rendered and their original address is returned instead. Constraints (max 8, png/jpeg/gif/webp only) and the retry path for oversized images are stated up front.

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