Display Image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the UI supports any valid URL or data URI but local file paths are auto-converted only for the listed extensions. It also mentions optional metadata parameters. Missing details like security considerations or size limits.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, but it becomes verbose with a run-on sentence about listings and formats. While all sentences add value, the structure could be more concise with better punctuation and separation.

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?

With 8 parameters, high schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, supported formats, parameter usage, and a key behavioral note on local file paths. It lacks error handling or constraints, but is fairly complete for a display tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose of parameters (e.g., metadata like title, caption, dimensions, file info) and clarifying src behavior (auto-conversion for local paths). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it displays images with an interactive preview card, lists supported formats (PNG, JPG, JPEG, GIF, SVG, WebP, BMP), and establishes it as the primary tool for any visual content, implicitly differentiating from siblings that handle non-image data.

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 explicitly says 'Always use this tool whenever you need to present visual content' and lists the supported formats. It also mentions applying to listings and image operations like get/download. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives (e.g., display_chart for charts) 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.