get_image_task

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: caching semantics with cached:true and remaining wait, no backend request on early/concurrent calls, no store lock held during network requests, independence of different tasks, and the fact that no generation is submitted or charged. These are non-obvious traits that materially change how an agent should poll.

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 purpose, then polling cadence, then return values, then a scope disclaimer. Every sentence carries information, though the middle clauses about store locks and concurrent calls are dense and read more like implementation notes than agent-facing guidance, slightly inflating the length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (result URLs and image resource links). Combined with polling cadence, stop conditions, cache behavior, and the no-charge disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 both request_id and refresh_result are already documented in the schema, including reuse-for-retries and the expired-link recovery behavior. The description references request_id only indirectly via polling semantics and adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: queries a task created by TopMediAi-MCP via request_id, and explicitly disclaims submitting or charging. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_generation_task, leaving the agent to infer the image-specific scope from the tool name and schema text ('owned image task').

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: wait poll_after_seconds (normally 20s) before re-querying, stop normal polling on completed or failed, and use preview_image_task with clickable original links once images are available. It also states when NOT to expect value from an early call (cached:true, no backend request), which is exactly the routing context an agent needs.

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