webex_get_message_images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver two useful behavioral facts: results are returned inline (not as URLs or files) and non-image attachments are skipped with a report rather than erroring. It omits size limits, what happens when a message contains no images, error conditions for invalid message IDs, and whether the call is purely read-only.

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 clauses, roughly ten words, with the primary return behavior front-loaded and the edge-case handling (skipped non-images) second. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be read twice.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential shape of the response: inline image payloads plus a report of skipped non-images. It could say more about that report's format and about empty-result behavior, but the critical caller-facing facts are present.

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?

There is a single required parameter (messageId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds no parameter-level detail — no indication of expected ID format or whether the ID must come from webex_get_messages — leaving it at the baseline.

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 ('Return') and resource ('message images'), plus the delivery mode ('inline for vision') and a secondary behavior ('report skipped non-images'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like webex_download_file or webex_save_message_files, though it does not name any of them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for vision' — the agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs to actually see image content in a message rather than just metadata. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as fetch-file or download-file paths for non-vision needs.

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