hermes_view_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description's 'View' aligns with. The description adds useful context: images must be 'allowed local' files, and it specifies supported formats, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the action ('View'), the resource ('allowed local image file'), and the context ('design review'). No wasted words; front-loaded and 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 simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It specifies file formats and the 'allowed' constraint, though parameter details are missing, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The only parameter is 'path' (required, string). The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should provide context. However, the description does not explain the 'path' parameter, its expected format, or examples, leaving the agent to infer meaning from minimal info.

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's function: viewing an allowed local image file as image content. It specifies supported formats (PNG/JPEG/WebP/GIF) and distinguishes from sibling tools like hermes_read_file (text reading) and hermes_list_files (listing files).

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 indicates when to use the tool: for image viewing of allowed local files during design review. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the intended use clear.

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