miro_get_image

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to restate idempotency, but it adds little behavioral context beyond mentioning that image_url can be used for downloading. It could mention permissions or pagination but overall meets minimum adequacy given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with two main sentences plus brief examples. No redundant information, and the key purpose is stated upfront.

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 get-details tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: what it returns, when to use it, and an alternative. It misses nothing critical, though it could mention authentication requirements for 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema describes both board_id and item_id sufficiently.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'image details' including specific outputs (URL, title, dimensions). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'miro_get_document' for document items.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides concrete examples like 'get image URL' and 'image details', and the 'VOICE-FRIENDLY' example shows a natural query. It also mentions an alternative tool for documents, though it could be more explicit about when not to use this tool.

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