image_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context about what data is returned and that it concerns an open view. It does not describe output structure, error conditions, or how the view is selected, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by 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 a compact, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and the returned data categories.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential domain context and data categories. However, it leaves the id parameter semantics underspecified and does not describe expected return structure, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 input schema provides no description for the single required 'id' parameter and schema coverage is 0%. The description implies that the id refers to an open view, which is helpful, but it does not explain where such an id comes from, its format, or how it maps to a specific view.

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 identifies the resource (an open view) and the specific data returned (FITS keywords, XISF properties, astrometric solution summary), making the tool's purpose understandable despite lacking an explicit verb. It is distinguishable from many siblings by naming these metadata categories, though it does not explicitly contrast with fits_header.

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 phrase 'of an open view' supplies an implied prerequisite, indicating the tool applies to a currently open view rather than an arbitrary file. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like fits_header or image_statistics, and no exclusions are stated.

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