shopify_get_uploaded_image

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar for the description. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond annotations by stating what the agent receives — processing status and a CDN URL — and by disclosing the non-creation behavior ('without creating another file') in domain terms. It does not enumerate possible status values, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource, with a contrastive clause earning its place by differentiating from the upload sibling. There is no filler, no repetition of schema information, and the structure puts the most decision-relevant information first.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with rich safety annotations, the description covers the basic resource and outcome, and since no output schema exists, the mention of 'processing status and its CDN URL' usefully signals the return content. However, it omits workflow context (that this is typically called after shopify_upload_image), the set of possible status values, and behavior when the image is not found, so an agent is left to infer the polling workflow.

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 burden of explaining parameters, yet it says nothing about 'store' or 'id'. The only semantic hint comes from the schema's pattern (^gid:\/\/shopify\/MediaImage\/[0-9]+$), which reveals id is a MediaImage GID; 'store' is left entirely unexplained. The description's mention of 'image processing' loosely implies id refers to an uploaded image, but this is weak compensation for a 0% coverage 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?

The description opens with a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource: 'image processing status and its CDN URL'. The trailing clause 'without creating another file' explicitly contrasts this read operation with the sibling shopify_upload_image tool, making the scope and differentiation unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without creating another file' implies this tool is for checking an existing upload rather than initiating a new one, providing implied usage context. However, it never names the alternative (shopify_upload_image) or states explicit conditions like 'use after uploading an image' or 'use shopify_upload_image if you need a new file', so the guidance remains implicit rather than directive.

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