get-file-data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral details: returns scaled rendition based on width, errors for non-rasterizable file types, clamp on width above 1568, and format option affecting token cost. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise but comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose, then detailing behavior and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use cases, return format (inline content block), error conditions, and alternatives. No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds extra context for width (quality knob, defaults, clamping) and format (image vs text, token implications), providing value beyond 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 clearly states the tool fetches a wiki file server-side and returns the image inline as a content block, specifically for sandboxed clients needing visual analysis. It also distinguishes from the sibling get-file by noting it errors for non-rasterizable files and directing users to get-file for those cases.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (for image delivery to model when client cannot reach wiki host) and when not to (for audio, video, binaries, metadata, or download URL), providing the alternative tool get-file.

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