get_image_task

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

Annotations already cover safety/idempotency (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: up to 3 retries on transient query failures, and disk writes on save=true (consistent with readOnlyHint=false). It stops short of describing failure semantics or what happens when save fails.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the query purpose, then retry behavior, then the save contract. No filler and every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers states, retry behavior, and the save side-effect. It is nearly complete for a single-task query; only explicit sibling routing (vs wait_image_task) is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the most consequential parameter: save=true persists images, false queries only. task_id is self-evident and output_dir is already documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (query an image task) and enumerates the possible states (NOT_START/IN_PROGRESS/FAILURE/SUCCESS), which pins down the resource precisely. It also clarifies it does not resubmit, which separates it from the submit_* siblings, but it does not directly contrast with wait_image_task or get_batch_image_task.

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?

Gives conditional usage for save=true (auto-persist images) vs false (query only) and notes the no-resubmit contract, which implies the right context. However it never names or contrasts the obvious alternatives wait_image_task and get_batch_image_task, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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