get_plate_thumbnail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it identifies the output as a rendered image and explains what each view means, including 'as shown in the UI', 'orthographic top-down', and 'unlit, smallest'. It does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, but the read-only visual nature is strongly implied.

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 compact, front-loads the main purpose, and presents the view options in a scannable, structured way. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, output type, the main parameter semantics, and the key sibling alternative. It leaves the valid range/source of plate numbers implicit, but that is likely established by surrounding context or sibling tools, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 schema has no descriptions, but the description adds real semantics for the view parameter by enumerating 'plate', 'top', and 'flat' and explaining each. The plate_number parameter is not elaborated, but it is self-descriptive and has a default value in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 that the tool returns a rendered image of the plate for questions that are genuinely visual. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling describe_plate by contrasting image-based answers against name/structure/statistics-based answers.

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 explicitly says to use describe_plate first for anything answerable from names, structure, or mesh statistics, and frames this tool as the appropriate choice for visual questions. This is direct when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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