Mostrar imagen de producto

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description aligns by stating it downloads and returns an image, with no contradictions. While it does not add extra behavioral details beyond the annotations, it is consistent.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that convey the tool's function and a key usage instruction without unnecessary elaboration.

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, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and a usage tip. It does not discuss edge cases or detailed return structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core functionality and use it correctly.

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 description mentions 'de un SKU' which hints at the sku_id parameter, but it does not explicitly define either parameter. The image_index parameter is completely unaddressed. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide necessary parameter context.

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 downloads a public image from a SKU and returns it as ImageContent PNG for model vision, and further explains how to make it visible to the user in Codex. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_product or search_products, which focus on other aspects.

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?

It provides an explicit usage instruction: copying the markdown in TextContent to make the image visible to the user in Codex. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this over get_product), leaving some inference required.

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