view_level_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool generates a PNG image, saves it to a temporary file, returns the file path for display, and mentions auto-adjustment for wide levels. It doesn't cover potential errors, performance characteristics, or file cleanup, but provides substantial operational context.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by comparative context, then behavioral details, and finally organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is well-organized for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage context, key behaviors, parameter meanings, and return value. The output schema handles the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further on that aspect.

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 must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'encoded_level' is explained as 'an encoded level string from a URL or sharing link', 'tile_size' as 'size of each tile in pixels' with default and auto-adjustment note, and 'max_width' as 'maximum image width in pixels' with default. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 specific action ('view a VibeTide level as a beautiful PNG image'), identifies the resource ('VibeTide level'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly contrasting with 'the ASCII version' (likely referring to the sibling 'view_level' tool). The purpose is precise and differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('generates a much better visual representation than the ASCII version, using the same colors as the web builder'), which implicitly suggests it's preferable for visual display over text-based alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or mention specific alternative tools by name beyond the implied contrast.

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