timeweb_get_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get detailed information', which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any specifics such as required permissions, response structure, error behaviors, or whether the image must exist. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states purpose and resource. There is zero wasted language, and it is appropriately concise for a simple get operation.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the schema covers both parameters in full, there is no output schema, so the description should hint at what 'detailed information' includes. The current description is generic and does not mention return fields, supported formats, or any constraints. For a get operation with a format parameter, a bit more explicitness would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions for 'image_id' and 'format'. The schema already documents each parameter adequately, so the description offers no extra semantic value.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific custom image', which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_images, create_image, update_image, and delete_image. The phrase 'specific custom image' leaves no ambiguity about the tool's target.

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 description implies usage when a specific custom image's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over list_images or other alternatives. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance on when to use or when not to use.

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