slide_get_image_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a key behavior: secret redaction, noting 'Same secret redaction as slide_list_image_exports: no Samba password', and it indicates the output includes connection info types. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention error scenarios or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get a single image export by ID'), then adds the most relevant output details and the redaction caveat. Every sentence earns its place and assists the agent efficiently.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description provides adequate context: it states what the output contains (image type, connection info) and the redaction behavior. It does not mention not-found/error behavior, and with no output schema, a bit more return-structure detail could help, but the description substantially covers what an agent needs to call it 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% (the parameter's purpose is already documented as 'Image export ID'). The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that a single export is fetched by this ID. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get a single image export by ID', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes the tool from list/browse siblings by emphasizing 'single' and 'by ID', and describes what the output contains (image type, ISCSI/NFS connection info), leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage when a specific image_export_id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over slide_browse_image_export or other alternatives. The only sibling reference is about redaction parity with slide_list_image_exports, not about selection criteria, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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