bookstack_images_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'details including URLs and metadata,' which adds some context about what information is returned. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource ('Get details of a specific image') and adds useful context ('including URLs and metadata'). There is no wasted wording, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and hints at return values ('URLs and metadata'), but without an output schema, it should ideally provide more detail on the response structure. The lack of behavioral transparency and usage guidelines reduces completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Image ID to retrieve.' The description adds minimal value beyond this by implying the parameter is used to specify 'a specific image,' but doesn't provide additional semantics like format constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific image'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this read operation from other image operations like 'bookstack_images_list' or 'bookstack_images_update' among the siblings, which would require mentioning it retrieves a single image by ID rather than listing all images.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that this is for retrieving a single image by ID, as opposed to 'bookstack_images_list' for listing all images or 'bookstack_images_update' for modifying an image. The description implies usage by stating 'Get details of a specific image,' but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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