get_imagor_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious calling pattern: no argument yields an outline, a named argument yields the body. It also flags that it covers caveats a 200 response hides, which is genuinely useful context. It does not explicitly state the read-only nature of the call, though that is trivially inferable for a documentation reader.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the imperative and the motivating topics, then the mechanics of the argument. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the workflow, the covered topics, and the caveat angle. It does not hint at what sections exist or how granular they are, but the dynamic outline design makes that acceptable.

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% and the schema already states that omitting section returns the section list, so the description's 'call again with a section name' largely restates it. The added nuance is the iterative two-pass workflow, which the schema only implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 communicates that this is a reference/skill document to be read before composing imagor paths, and enumerates the topics it covers (path order, overlay and text placement, resize modes). The verb+resource is implied rather than stated, and it never differentiates itself from the sibling describe_imagor, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives a clear directive on when to consult it ('Read this before composing anything') and explains the two-step retrieval pattern (omit section for the outline, then fetch the section you need). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases such as validate_imagor_path or describe_imagor.

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