Get Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what information is returned, whether the coordinate system matters, or what include_print_info diagnostics reveal.

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?

A single seven-word phrase with no filler, and the subject matter is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it reads as an under-specified fragment rather than a complete statement of behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'image information' actually contains — dimensions, placement, link status, color space, etc. It never does, and it also omits any note that include_print_info only applies to embedded raster images, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.

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 coordinate_system enum and include_print_info flag are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the get_document_info cross-reference. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (embedded and linked image information), so the agent knows it retrieves image metadata rather than modifying images. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like manage_linked_images or find_objects, but the resource scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (manage_linked_images) for linked-image operations. The agent must infer that this is a read/inspection step from the name alone.

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