旋转 / 镜像翻转图片（angle 与 flip 至少给一个），产物返下载 URL（1 credit/次）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flip | No | 翻转：none / h（水平镜像）/ v（垂直镜像） | none |
| angle | No | 顺时针旋转角度：0/90/180/270 | |
| file_id | No | 图片文件 ID（与 data_base64 二选一） | |
| filename | No | 输出文件名（可选） | |
| data_base64 | No | 图片内容 base64 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the result is a download URL and that each use costs 1 credit. However, it doesn't explain failure modes, how angle and flip combine, or any file source prerequisites beyond the schema.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence covers the action, the key constraint, and the cost/output. No unnecessary words, very efficient.
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 five self-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage condition, return type, and cost. Missing details about error handling or response structure, but overall adequate for a simple image operation tool in a sibling 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly requiring at least one of 'angle' or 'flip', which prevents a no-op call when both use their default values. This goes beyond the schema.
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 rotates or mirror-flips images, using the specific verb '旋转/镜像翻转' and the resource '图片'. This distinguishes it from sibling image tools like img_resize or img_crop.
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 a key usage constraint ('angle 与 flip 至少给一个'), but does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it. The purpose itself implies the use case, but no clear exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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 are clearly distinct, but img_compress and img_convert both support format changes, and img_info and img_exif both read metadata, creating minor overlap. The descriptions help clarify the primary purposes, so ambiguity is low.
All tools share the img_ prefix and mostly use verb-based names like img_compress and img_resize. However, img_info and img_exif are noun-based, which is a slight deviation from the pattern, though still predictable and readable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for an image toolbox. Each tool addresses a common operation without unnecessary additions, making the count appropriate for the stated purpose.
The toolset covers the core image lifecycle: inspecting info, reading EXIF, compressing, converting, resizing, cropping, rotating, and watermarking. There are no glaring gaps for a practical image toolbox, so agents can handle typical workflows end-to-end.