view_image

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that only image mime types (PNG/JPEG/WebP) are supported, and directs audio/video to get_image. However, it does not mention error handling, size limits, or any side effects. Since the tool is read-only by design, this is reasonably transparent, but lacks full behavioral detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: action, usage context, constraints, and alternatives. Highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and constraints. It provides a sibling tool alternative. However, it does not explain the output format (e.g., base64 vs rendered) or error cases, which could be gaps for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by mentioning that asset_id comes from job completion, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The description does not elaborate on the parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (fetch and return inline image), the resource (registered asset), and the output format (inline image for agent to see). It distinguishes from sibling get_image by specifying that view_image only supports image mime types and provides inline display, while get_image is for audio/video assets to disk.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this after enqueue_workflow completes' and provides context that asset_id is in the completion notification. Also specifies when not to use: for audio/video assets, which should use get_image. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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