get_images_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it explicitly marks the operation as 'Read-only.' It also discloses the limit truncation behavior ('Only the first N IDs are fetched') and the return shape, which is useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds information: usage context, alternative routing, read-only status, parameter details, and return type. There is no filler or tautology.

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 read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: all inputs are documented with defaults and behaviors, the return type is stated, and the main sibling alternative is explicitly distinguished. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 compensate, and it does: asset_ids are defined as asset UUIDs, size is explained with concrete pixel values ('thumbnail' 250px/'preview' 1440px), and limit is given a range (1-50), default (20), and selection behavior. Every parameter receives meaningful semantics not present in the 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 states a specific action ('Get thumbnails for arbitrary asset IDs') and the exact output type ('image blocks for inline visual display'). It further distinguishes itself from the sibling get_thumbnails_batch by naming the alternative and the scenario where that tool should be used instead.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('visually show search results in clients that render images') and names the alternative tool for HTML gallery generation with base64 data URIs. This gives an agent clear routing guidance between two similarly named batch thumbnail tools.

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