Design asset

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, and the description adds the useful behavioral distinction that raster files are returned as images while SVG files are returned as source. This goes beyond the annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 contains no fluff; both sentences carry functional information. The opening is slightly awkward ('An image from the document by the path...') but remains quickly scannable.

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?

With only two required parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key missing context: where paths originate and how the response differs by format. It could specify the exact response encoding or error handling, but for a simple read-only asset lookup the definition is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description enriches the path parameter by explaining that it comes from node.asset.path and that screenshot.png is a valid special value. This is practical information not present in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as an image asset in a document and indicates a path-based lookup, which separates it from sibling tools that return nodes, documents, tokens, or search results. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'returns' or 'fetches,' but the behavior is clear enough from the examples and the raster/SVG contrast.

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?

It gives practical guidance on where to obtain the path (node.asset.path or screenshot.png), so an agent can infer the intended use when it needs an asset for a node. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving the choice to inference.

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