get_card_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The 'cache' verb implies side effects (network fetch, caching) but doesn't explain caching behavior, whether repeated calls hit a cache, rate-limit implications, or what localization metadata is returned. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify the caching semantics or resource URI format.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action (cache) and mentions the return value. It's appropriately short for a simple image-retrieval tool, though additional detail on parameters would be valuable.

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 caching tool with an output schema and 3 parameters including validation-sensitive options like size and language, the description is thin. It doesn't explain the resource URI structure, how localization metadata works, or what happens on cache miss. The output schema exists but significant behavioral context about the caching mechanism and URI format 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'size' values are valid (beyond the 'high' default), what language format is expected (e.g., locale codes), or what the returned resource URI format is. The card_id is self-evident from the name, but 'size' and 'language' lack meaningful guidance.

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 says 'Cache a card image and return its MCP resource URI plus localization metadata' with a clear verb (cache) and resource (card image). It specifies what's returned (MCP resource URI + localization metadata). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling get_set_image or identify_card_from_image, but the core purpose is clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_card, resolve_card, or get_set_image. It doesn't state contexts where caching/retrieving a card image is appropriate vs fetching card data. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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