get_inspiration

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the returned content (prompt, media, metadata, source link) and stating it's free with no authentication needed. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and key details, making every sentence purposeful.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description adequately covers what is returned and the free access. It does not explain error handling or rate limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Prompt id from search_gallery.' The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 tool retrieves 'full prompt, preview media, metadata, and LemGen source link for one gallery entry,' specifying the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_gallery' which lists entries rather than fetching details.

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 mentions it's free and requires no API key, implying low usage barriers. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_gallery' or provide exclusions. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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