Информация о ссылке на скачивание образа

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

The description adds useful details about return fields and the conditional inclusion of the URL based on status. However, annotations do not mark it as read-only (readOnlyHint: false), and the description does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or requires special permissions. It provides some transparency beyond the annotations but not full disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Возвращает детальную информацию') and lists specific fields. No wasted words.

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 getter with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the complexity is low and the parameter schema fills in the required IDs. The description is complete enough for effective use.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID образа' and 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID ссылки на скачивание'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further semantics about the relationship between the IDs or how to obtain them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns detailed information about a specific image download link, listing key fields (type, status, progress, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_image_download, delete_image_download, and list_image_downloads.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving details about a single download link. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would use it when needing per-link details rather than listing all downloads.

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