Read comment image

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses rechecking permissions on every read, share isolation, handling of deleted images, and the security rule that images and filenames are untrusted feedback. It also clarifies the side effect of not marking comments read, which is valuable behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs only necessary behavioral, security, and output details into a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates by specifying the returned content type, size limit, included metadata, and dimensions. The parameter schema plus this description give an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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 high at 80%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds useful parameter semantics by telling the agent where to obtain attachment_id, namely from comment_read or comment_context, which is not present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one comment image attachment as native image content,' which clearly distinguishes it from comment text/list tools. It further differentiates itself by noting it does not mark comments read and returns a derivative image, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like artifact_site_comment_read.

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 gives concrete workflow guidance: 'Get attachment_id from comment_read or comment_context,' telling an agent where the required input comes from. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the purpose and workflow context make the usage situation clear.

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