Px View Images

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns image content blocks and info dicts, which is useful, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, error behavior, or limitations (e.g., maximum number of paths, supported formats). Since it's a read‑only‑looking operation, it could have stated that it does not modify files, but it doesn't. Behavioral transparency is thin.

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 two lines, front‑loaded with the core action and output format. It has no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It loses one point because it omits parameter details, but the dimension is about conciseness, not completeness, and it is compact and well‑structured.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should still cover parameter usage, any constraints, and how it relates to siblings. It only hints at the plural nature, doesn't explain what 'paths' or 'max_side' do, and provides no guidance on when to use this vs px_view_image. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description is not enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'paths' is required but its meaning (file paths? URLs?) is not clarified; 'max_side' (with default 384) is not described as a resizing constraint or any other purpose. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('several image files'), and specifies the output format ('MCP image content blocks' with accompanying info dicts). The plural wording differentiates it from the sibling px_view_image, though it doesn't explicitly name the singular alternative.

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 'several image files' implies this is for multiple images, which distinguishes it from the singular px_view_image. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this for multiple images and px_view_image for a single one,' nor does it mention any contexts where it shouldn't be used. The usage is implied, not explicit.

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