Get document images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't: it never states that this is a read-only operation returning the underlying payload, nor the image format, size, or whether results are truncated by max_images (default 8, max 20). The only behavior disclosed is that pictures come back, which is arguably tautological with the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight, though the efficient phrasing is partly achieved by omitting information the agent needs.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source for return-value behavior — and it doesn't say how images are returned (base64? URLs? MIME types?) or how the 8/20 limit behaves. For a binary-payload retrieval tool this leaves a critical gap.

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 50%: doc_id has an example, but max_images is undocumented in the schema and entirely unmentioned in the description. The description adds domain framing ('Word procedure document') to justify doc_id but does nothing to explain the limit parameter or what happens when more images exist than the cap.

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 (Return) plus resource (pictures embedded in a Word procedure document), with illustrative examples of what the pictures are. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, e.g. get_page_image or get_drawing, so an agent must infer that this one is scoped to procedure documents rather than pages/drawings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to alternatives among the many image/drawing siblings (get_page_image, get_drawing, get_procedure). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'embedded in a Word procedure document'.

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