get_image_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that detailed information is returned, but does not specify what fields are included, whether it expects a selected image or uses the itemIndex, or if there are side effects. The absence of an output schema compounds the lack of transparency.

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 extremely concise at 6 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but it lacks necessary detail. While conciseness is good, the description is under-specified, which reduces its utility. A sentence or two more would improve it without being verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, prerequisites (e.g., open document, existing images), or how the itemIndex relates to the image. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without further context.

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 100% for the single parameter 'itemIndex', which has a description 'Image index' and a default of 0. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema already adequately documents the parameter, but the description could have clarified what index 0 refers to (e.g., first image in document).

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 'Get detailed information about an image' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_page_item_info or get_document_elements which may also return image information. The input schema reveals an itemIndex parameter, but the description doesn't mention how to specify which image, leaving ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an open document or an image to exist, nor any indication of when not to use it. The sibling tools list includes multiple getters, but no differentiation is offered.

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