get_description_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait that inline images are not visible via list_attachments and that the return is OCR text per image, which is genuinely useful context. It stops short of stating read-only nature, permission requirements, or failure behavior when no inline images exist, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, rationale, trigger condition, and return value. It is front-loaded with the purpose, though the embedded tab indentation and slightly verbose phrasing keep it just below maximally tight.

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 tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, sibling differentiation, trigger conditions, and return shape. Remaining gaps are minor: no statement of read-only guarantees, permissions, or behavior when no inline images are found.

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 0% for the single ticket_id parameter, so the description must carry the semantics. It implies ticket_id identifies the ticket whose description HTML body is parsed, but adds no format, validity, or ID-source guidance. Self-evident naming plus implied meaning supports a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb pair (extract and OCR) against a specific resource (inline images embedded in a ticket's description HTML body), and explicitly distinguishes itself from list_attachments and by implication get_attachment_text. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces (OCR text from inline images) versus its siblings.

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 trigger condition tied to sibling tools: use when get_ticket_summary shows a non-empty description but list_attachments finds no images, or when the description mentions a screenshot/table/log. This is an explicit when-to-use rule with the alternative (list_attachments) named, leaving little to inference.

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