get_event_comment_image

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it returns image content directly rather than saving a file, supports JPEG/PNG/GIF/WebP up to 5 MiB, includes free-account images, and explicitly excludes premium event file attachments. This gives the agent a clear operational profile.

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 four compact sentences, front-loads what the tool does, and follows with parameter sourcing, return behavior, supported formats, and exclusions. Every sentence contributes relevant information without repetition.

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?

Given full schema coverage, read-only annotations, an output schema, and sibling comment tools, the description covers purpose, parameter sourcing, direct return behavior, format constraints, and an important unsupported case. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters, including that comment_id and image_index come from list_event_comments. The description reinforces those sources but does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: view one image attached to an event comment. It also scopes the tool by noting free-account images are included while premium event file attachments are not, which clearly distinguishes this from related comment-listing tools.

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 tells the agent where to obtain the required comment_id and image_index via list_event_comments, and it names an explicit exclusion: premium event file attachments are not supported. It does not offer alternative tools for unsupported attachments, so it falls short of a full 5.

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