View Image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Display ... to yourself' implies a non-mutating read operation and the modeling workflow hints at how it fits in, but it does not disclose session requirements, behavior on missing/unsupported files, or anything about the second parameter's effect. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage condition and workflow. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, trigger, and follow-up workflow, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as session targeting behavior, which the schema already covers.

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 path and session_key are already documented including accepted file formats and the single-session default. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Display a local image file') plus the unusual detail that the image is shown to the agent itself, which is a meaningful distinction from sibling capture_viewport. It also names the follow-on tool import_reference_image, so an agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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 gives the trigger condition ('when the user points you at a reference image') and the sequencing ('view it first, then model'), including the optional alternative path via import_reference_image. It stops short of stating when not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g. needing an active session), but the context is clear.

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