fetch_product_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention scraping and downloading, and that it returns local paths, implying disk writes. However, it does not clarify side effects like whether files are persistent, overwritten, or if any rate limits or permissions apply, which is a gap for a tool that downloads resources.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and audience, then lists input options and return values. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format (data-URLs + local paths) and both input modes. It covers the core usage for a simple 3-parameter tool, though it could benefit from noting that product_url and image_urls should not both be provided, but the 'ou' (or) already implies exclusivity.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the crucial relationship that the tool accepts either a product_url OR image_urls (mutually exclusive), which is not evident from the schema alone. It also clarifies the limit parameter's role in the context of fetching.

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 downloads product images for display in chat, using a specific verb ('Baixa') and resource ('imagens de um produto'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning two input modes (page URL scraping or direct URL list) and the return type (data-URLs + local paths), which sets it apart from search/analyze/OCR tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('para EXIBIÇÃO no chat') and explains the two alternative input modes ('URL da página' vs 'lista direta de URLs'). It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, but the intended use case is well implied and distinct.

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