Download ONES Image By Resource ID

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: the URL is freshly signed (expiring) and keyed to a stable resource_id, and the return is MCP ImageContent. It does not disclose auth requirements or error behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the prerequisite flow. No filler or redundancy.

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 detailed, and the description still flags ImageContent. The prerequisite flow is captured well; the remaining gap is the unexplained operation parameter and lack of sibling disambiguation.

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. It clarifies resource_id as a 'stable ONES resource_id' but says nothing about the 'operation' parameter (default imageMogr2/auto-orient), leaving that parameter undocumented in both schema and 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a fresh signed URL for a stable ONES resource_id and return the image as MCP ImageContent'), which is clear and concrete. However, it never differentiates itself from the close sibling download_ones_resource, leaving the agent to guess which downloader applies.

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?

It provides an explicit recommended flow ('get_doc(include_resources=true), read resources, then call this tool'), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool and what must precede it. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or how it differs from download_ones_resource.

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