view_image

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns an inline image, supports only PNG/JPEG/WebP, and mentions the alternative for other types. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid asset_id) or size limits, leaving minor gaps in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No redundant or extraneous text. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, supported types, and alternatives. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., maximum image size) but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by specifying that asset_id is the same as returned by list_assets or job completion, which clarifies its origin beyond the schema description. This is helpful context for the agent.

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 purpose: fetch an asset's bytes and return as an inline image for the agent to see. It specifies the action (fetch/return) and the resource (registered asset), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_image (which saves to disk) and list_output_images (which lists metadata).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use after enqueue_workflow completes, with the asset_id from the completion notification. It also states when not to use (audio/video assets must use get_image) and lists supported MIME types. This covers both when and when-not to use the tool.

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