request_context_imagePresent an image upload widget and return a ref_id for the uploaded image, for use with any other tool that accepts a context_image_ref param.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions an upload widget and return of a ref_id, adding some behavioral context beyond annotations (which only indicate non-destructive, non-idempotent, fully specified). However, it does not disclose potential user interaction blocking, error handling, or what happens on cancellation.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word serves a clear function, with no extraneous information.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic flow. However, it lacks details on state changes (e.g., temporary storage), error scenarios, and whether the upload is user-initiated or automatic, which would be expected for a tool that presents a UI widget.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable per baseline (0 params = baseline 4). No value added beyond schema, but none needed.
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 tool presents an upload widget and returns a ref_id, and specifies its use with other tools accepting a context_image_ref param. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'request_user_selfie', which also involves image upload.
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 context on when to use (before calling tools that accept context_image_ref), but does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like request_user_selfie. Usage is implied but not fully contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a clear resource (search, details, mix-and-match, wishlist, try-on), but search_fashion_products explicitly claims all styling/outfit requests while get_mix_and_match also handles outfit building, and both list 'what goes with my blue jeans' as an example. The selfie upload guidance also conflicts with try_on_product's built-in upload widget. Still, the detailed descriptions narrow most boundaries.
All names use snake_case and a verb-first pattern (get_, request_, search_, show_, try_on), making the set predictable. Minor inconsistency: get_mix_and_match and get_user_looks are less noun-like than the rest, and the retrieve-style verbs vary between get, show, and request.
8 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and maps naturally to a shopping/styling assistant: search, detail, outfit, try-on, wishlist, saved looks, and uploads. No tool feels redundant enough to cut, and adding more would risk bloat.
The set covers the main shopper journey: search/browse, product detail, outfit building, virtual try-on, saved looks, and wishlist. The main gaps are wishlist mutation (add/remove) and an explicit way to manage/inspect selfies or context images, but these are workable around the existing tools.