View Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating what accompanies each image (conversation, author, date, caption), but says nothing about how images are delivered (inline data vs. URL), size limits, or behavior when an id is invalid.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated. Nothing is redundant, though the enumeration of fields could be trimmed if return details were documented elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned per image. For a simple one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, that is nearly sufficient; only the image delivery format and error behavior remain unstated.

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%, and the schema itself explains the id format via the [imagem #123] reference plus min/max item bounds. The description adds no further meaning about the ids parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Mostra") with a specific resource ("imagens das conversas") and even lists the accompanying fields per image (conversa, autor, data, legenda). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like read_document or get_messages, which could also surface conversation content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_messages, read_document, or search. The only usage signal is indirect: the schema notes that ids correspond to markers like [imagem #123], implying the tool is called after seeing such a reference, but the description itself states no conditions or alternatives.

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