view_image

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

The description discloses the output format (base64) and the specific node types it works with. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It could mention potential performance issues with large images, but the information given is adequate and non-contradictory.

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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose and prerequisite. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and prerequisite. It could mention error cases (e.g., no image found) but is otherwise sufficient.

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%, and the tool description does not add new information beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions. Per scoring guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'view' and resource 'image from a Preview Image or Save Image node', and explains the output format (base64). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which directly view images.

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 advises to 'Run the workflow first to generate images', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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