show_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the downscaling behavior ('downscaled to keep it small') and that it returns an image for viewing, which are useful. However, it does not describe the return format, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise, with two sentences for the purpose and behavior, followed by a clear Args block. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: how to obtain the path (from run_workflow), what max_edge does, and that the image is downscaled. It omits details like return format or error conditions, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: 'path' is explained as a path from run_workflow's outputs, and 'max_edge' is explained as the longest edge in pixels after downscaling. This fully adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool returns a generated image for viewing, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('generated image'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing 'run_workflow's outputs', making its role unique among the listed tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after running a workflow, to view a generated image by specifying a path from run_workflow's outputs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the reference to run_workflow gives enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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