ops_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains (document types plus page counts) and that coverage varies by jurisdiction. It stops short of saying what happens when no images exist or whether the list is paginated.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core purpose before the availability caveat. No filler, though the mixed-language phrasing is slightly harder to parse than necessary and the availability note could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. But the description leaves the two-parameter surface effectively undocumented (especially `fmt`) and gives no sense of relationship to the sibling download/fulltext tools, which matters for a retrieval tool in a crowded family.

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%, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, and it does not deliver. The required `number` parameter is only obliquely implied by '某件', and the `fmt` parameter — which defaults to 'auto' and is completely undocumented — is never mentioned at all. An agent has to guess both the identifier format and what fmt controls.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the list of PDF images (FullDocument, Drawing, FirstPageClipping) and page counts for a given case. Document types are enumerated concretely. It does not distinguish itself from sibling ops_download_pdf, which an agent might plausibly reach for instead.

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 clause about TW/US/EP gazette originals being mostly available implies when this tool will return results, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this rather than ops_download_pdf or ops_fulltext, and no guidance on handling missing images.

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