visual_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the TTL constraint and return content ('metadata + ImageContent'), which are not in annotations and provide valuable 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase adds value 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?

For a simple tool with two required string params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key constraints (TTL), return type, and required parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description compensates by explaining that artifact_id is 'opaque' and 'within TTL' and that lease_id is required. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not fully define what lease_id represents.

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 action ('Re-fetch a previously captured artifact') and the resource ('artifact by opaque artifact_id'). It distinguishes from siblings like visual_capture and visual_compare by emphasizing 'previously captured' and 'within TTL'.

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 implies use after a prior capture and within the TTL window, and it explicitly requires a lease_id, which is a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.