Show Image

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and safe behavior. The description adds beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('JSON object') and providing the API endpoint ('GET /rest/v1.0/images/{id}'). No contradictions.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then usage, return format, required parameters, and API details. 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, return format, and required parameters. It mentions the API endpoint for further context. However, it does not clarify the pagination parameters (page/per_page) included in the schema, which could be confusing for a 'fetch single item' tool. Still, it is adequate for a read-only tool with strong annotations.

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 all parameters documented. The description reiterates required parameters ('id, project_id') but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses the verb 'Show' and specifies the resource 'Image' within a 'Project's Photo Album'. It clearly indicates the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_images' or 'show_image_category'. No tautology.

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 states when to use the tool: 'to fetch the full details of a specific Photos by its identifier'. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools, 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.