view_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral trait of inline terminal display using a specific protocol, but does not mention potential limitations (e.g., terminal compatibility, file format support, error handling, or performance impacts). It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and method, the second clarifies the visual outcome. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and method well, but could be more complete by addressing terminal compatibility or error scenarios. However, it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on path validation or supported image formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Display an image file inline') with the resource ('image file') and distinguishes the method ('using Kitty graphics protocol (Ghostty/Kitty)'). It specifies the exact visual outcome ('appears directly in the user's terminal'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 by stating the tool displays images in terminals supporting Kitty/Ghostty protocols, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other image viewers or protocols). With no sibling tools, this is adequate but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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