unmarking

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description reinforces it with 'Nothing is modified.' It also goes beyond the annotation by disclosing the output behavior, specifically reporting the signer and Claude-made status, which is useful for an agent deciding whether results will satisfy the request.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and result appear in the first sentence, and the safety guarantee is a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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?

With a single parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is read, what is reported, and that nothing is modified. It does not specify exact return formatting or error cases, but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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 the schema fully documents the url parameter, including the http(s) format and the local-paths limitation. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but because the schema already carries this burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Reads'), names a distinct resource ('C2PA content credential'), and states the concrete result ('reports its signer, including whether the file was made with Claude'). It is clearly differentiated from the sibling strip_file because reading is the opposite of stripping.

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 the right usage context: inspect a file's embedded credential without modification. However, it does not explicitly mention strip_file as the alternative or state when the agent should prefer one over the other, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the output (a download link for a cleaned copy) and gives a meaningful behavioral guarantee that pixels, frames, and samples stay untouched. It does not cover all edge cases or failure modes, but it addresses the most important side-effect concern.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action and output are front-loaded, and the statement about pixels/frames/samples is a concise, high-value clarification.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input, the operation, the output, and the key behavioral constraint. There is no obvious missing information an agent would need to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, url, including a clear description of what kinds of URLs are accepted. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') with a clear object ('C2PA content credential') and names the output ('download link'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool inspect_file, whose purpose is inspection, not modification.

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 when to use this tool — when you need to strip a content credential — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative inspect_file. The usage context is evident from the purpose, but the routing guidance is only implied.

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