Read Image Tile

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: tiles come from original pixels, default to 8% overlap, and are capped at a 1600 px longest side. This helps set expectations about fidelity and output limits.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs only high-value behavioral details. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, but the schema itself is detailed with 100% coverage. The description covers the essential behavior, overlap default, and size limit. It does not explicitly connect to image_info or rule out alternatives, but the schema and sibling names fill most of that 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tiles are original-pixel-based and constrained to a safe 1600 px path, which clarifies the intent behind overlap and max_dimension parameters even before reading their descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one tile from an automatically recommended high-detail grid.' This clearly differentiates it from whole-image reading and arbitrary cropping tools among the 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 description implies use for high-detail grid tiles, and schema parameters reference image_info's recommended grid, but the description itself does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus read_image_crop or read_image, nor does it state prerequisites like calling image_info first.

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