Retrieve a lost-and-found item's photo for the current project. Returns the WebP preview when available, otherwise the original image; returns 404 if no photo exists.
获取失物照片。项目成员可读。有 WebP 预览时优先返回预览，否则返回原图；无照片返回 404。 GET /api/projects/{id}/lostfound/{itemId}/photo 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: WebP preview is preferred over the original when available, a 404 is returned when no photo exists, and the project scope is derived from the API key rather than a parameter. These are return/error and auth-scope facts not in the 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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then permission, return behavior, and scope note in compact form. No wasted sentences, though the raw route line and projectId caveat are somewhat procedural rather than essential.
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 simple 1-parameter GET with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (WebP vs original), the 404 case, and auth/scope. Only the itemId semantics and response content-type remain unstated.
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 0% for the single itemId parameter, so the schema gives no semantics. The description partially compensates by embedding {itemId} in the route template and clarifying that projectId is not needed, but it never explains what itemId is or its format, leaving a real gap.
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+resource ('获取失物照片' / get the lost-found item's photo) and even gives the underlying route. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling anon_get_lostfound_item_id (item detail) and anon_get_lostfound (list).
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 a permission precondition ('项目成员可读' – readable by project members) which helps an agent know it is an authorized read, but it names no alternative or when-to-use/when-not condition relative to the sibling item/material preview tools. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.