Get Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is transparent enough. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or permission requirements, but for a simple read tool, this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. 'Get details' implies a return value, and the schema clarifies parameters. It could explicitly mention filtering alt texts via the lang parameter, but the schema already conveys that. Overall, a brief but sufficient description.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage. The asset_id and lang parameters are clearly documented ('The asset ID of the image' and 'Filter alt texts by language code'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get details for a specific image by its asset ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('image') with a unique identifier ('asset ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_images (all images) and update_image/delete_image (mutations).

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific asset ID and need its details. The phrase 'by its asset ID' suggests this is not for listing or searching. However, there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use it or alternatives like search_images for finding by criteria.

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