get_image_dimensions

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only operation, and the output scope is clear, but the description does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid view IDs, whether multiple views are validated independently, or what 'color status' precisely means. For a simple getter this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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-loads the main function, and then adds a single high-value domain constraint. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the resource, scope, and an important use condition. It could mention error behavior or return shape, but those are minor for this simple API.

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% for the only parameter, view_ids, with the schema already saying 'View IDs to check.' The description adds that it works for 'one or more views' and connects the parameter to the ChannelCombination precondition, but it does not add significant format or semantics beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get dimensions, channel count, and color status for one or more views.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns and is distinct from sibling tools like combine_channels or get_image_stats, so an agent can select it accurately without open the schema.

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 gives a concrete usage context: 'Every channel must have identical dimensions before ChannelCombination,' which implies this tool is the right precondition check before combine_channels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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