get_asset_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It explicitly states 'Read-only', describes the exact return type ('MCP ImageContent'), and explains the behavioral consequences of the size parameter (250px/fast vs 1440px/higher quality). This is sufficient behavioral disclosure for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tightly structured: purpose, usage context, parameter docs, and return type are each given in compact, front-loaded statements. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes distinctive information.

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 two-parameter, single-asset image retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: intended client environments, alternative for a different use case, full parameter semantics, return format, and read-only status. No critical information is missing.

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 fully compensate, and it does. It documents asset_id as 'The asset's UUID' and size with its two values, dimensions, quality implications, and default. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema fields, which only list type and default.

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+resource: 'Get a single asset's thumbnail as an image block for inline visual display.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_asset_thumbnail, naming the exact alternative and its different return type, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this in clients that render images (Open WebUI, Claude Desktop).' It then states the exclusion condition and alternative: 'For HTML gallery generation with base64 data URIs (Cowork/skills), use get_asset_thumbnail instead — it returns JSON.' This is precisely the when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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