tic_image

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details like partial, case-insensitive task text matching and the [img] marker convention, but it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous matches, missing images, or error cases.

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?

Two sentences carry the entire needed meaning with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important [img] marker guidance is included efficiently.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to identify the target task, and when it applies via the [img] marker. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not address ambiguous partial matches or the exact form of the returned image, but these are minor for this low-complexity 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?

The schema provides no description for the 'task' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that the task is identified by its text and that matching is partial and case-insensitive, giving the agent meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'View the image or screenshot attached to a Tic task.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings (tic_read, tic_search, tic_lists) by focusing on image retrieval, and adds how the task is identified via partial text.

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 this tool: tasks with an image are marked '[img]' in tic_read and tic_search output, so an agent knows to call tic_image only for tasks carrying that marker. It references the sibling tools that produce the marker, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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