Информация об образе

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

The annotations state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Возвращает детальную информацию'). This is a direct contradiction, as a GET-like operation should be read-only and idempotent. The description fails to disclose any side effects or mutations, and the annotations actively mislead about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the returned fields without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description adequately covers the return value by enumerating the key fields, which is sufficient for a simple 1-parameter get operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or any edge cases, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. The annotation contradiction slightly reduces trust but does not affect completeness directly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter image_id, and the description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema states (e.g., format, constraints, or behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the load, and the description adds no extra value.

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 uses a clear verb 'возвращает' (returns) and specifies the resource 'информацию об образе' (information about an image) by ID. It also enumerates the returned fields (status, progress, sizes, OS, location, disk_id, custom flag), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like list_images or get_image_download.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. It is simply a description of what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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