view_samples

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read-only operation on closed data, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only the *most recent* samples are returned, which is useful scoping, but says nothing about image format, where samples come from, whether older samples are retrievable, or latency/size concerns.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the motivation trailing. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could have said what comes back (file paths, URLs, inline images) and how many by default. It's minimally viable for a simple read tool, but with 0% parameter coverage it should do more work than it does.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely doesn't. "job" is only obliquely implied, and the key "count" parameter (default 4) is never explained — no statement of what it controls, its valid range, or the maximum allowed.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Return the most recent sample images from a job") plus a stated purpose ("judge training progress visually"). That purpose implicitly separates it from siblings like get_loss and get_job_log, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "so you can judge training progress visually" implies the use case and distinguishes it from numerical loss or log inspection. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_loss or list_job_outputs, and no prerequisites.

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