get_vision_payload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a multi-section text report and how it handles missing vision_ids. While it doesn't mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, the description is sufficiently transparent for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with separate sections for what the tool returns, comparison to alternatives, args, and return behavior. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted sentences.

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 that the tool has an output schema (context indicates it exists), the description does not need to fully detail return values. It summarizes the output effectively and explains fallback behavior. The description fully covers the necessary context for a single-parameter tool.

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 single parameter vision_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating it is an integer id returned by get_vision_history, which provides extraction source. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 explicitly states the tool gets the full enriched object for a fired Pythia Vision by id. It details the contents (pattern metadata, failure profile, etc.) and clearly distinguishes between lightweight on-chain consumers and AI agents, the latter being the intended audience. This provides a specific verb-resource combination with differentiation from 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'AI agents reasoning about a specific Vision should use this tool' and contrasts it with on-chain decoding. It also notes that if vision_id is not in the recent window, the tool returns a helpful pointer to history. This tells the agent when to use this tool and what to expect.

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