get_embedded_image_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('Read an embedded image'), describes the error condition ('Refuses with ElementNotFoundError'), and explains the return fields. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a safe read tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then error behavior. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return object, error case, and use case. It could explicitly state that 'path' refers to the report file path, but otherwise it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0% with no descriptions for 'path' and 'name'. The description clarifies that 'name' refers to the image entry in <EmbeddedImages>, but 'path' is not described at all. This leaves the agent guessing about the path parameter. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool reads an embedded image's base64 data for porting to another report. It specifies the return object and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_embedded_images (which only lists) and get_image (likely returns different format). The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly says when to use: for porting an image without re-reading from disk. It provides context but does not state when not to use or explicitly mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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