view_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — the accepted formats (PNG/JPEG) and a size ceiling (10 MiB) — but says nothing about what 'display' returns, whether the workspace must pre-exist, or failure modes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the constraint is stated immediately after the purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should be more self-sufficient. Format and size limits are covered, but the relationship between path and workspace, and the return/rendering behavior, are left unaddressed for a two-required-parameter tool.

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% and neither parameter has a title description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It does not explain what 'path' is relative to, nor what form 'workspace' takes, leaving both required parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Display) and resource (existing PNG/JPEG inside a model workspace), which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. blender_script or record_review), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only states a resource constraint (PNG/JPEG, 10 MiB), which narrows what can be passed but not when this tool should be selected.

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