pixelvault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Permanently delete') and auth requirement, but does not mention error handling, id validation, or potential side effects, which would be useful.

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 three sentences: purpose, REST mapping, and auth. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, destructive operation), the description covers purpose, mechanism, and auth. It lacks details on error responses or return format, but is sufficient for use.

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% with the 'id' parameter well-described in the schema ('Image id to delete, e.g. img_abc123'). The description adds no new information about parameters, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete one PixelVault image by id.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_image, list_images, upload_image) by specifying deletion, and includes the REST mapping and auth requirement, leaving no 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 implies usage context (deleting an image) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or what conditions apply (e.g., image must exist). However, for a simple delete operation, the context is clear enough.

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 provided, so description carries burden. It declares read behavior (GET endpoint) and auth needs, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention potential errors (e.g., image not found). Adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 concise sentences: first sentence states purpose and outputs, second gives endpoint and auth. No redundant or excessive 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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with no output schema, description mentions return fields and auth. Lacks error handling or pagination info (not applicable). Mostly complete but could add read-only hint and error scenarios.

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%, with param 'id' already well-described. Tool description adds 'by id' and endpoint mapping but no additional semantic depth beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'metadata for one PixelVault image', and specific attributes (CDN URL, size, MIME type, dimensions). It distinguishes from siblings (delete_image, list_images, upload_image) by focusing on single image retrieval.

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?

Description explains when to use (to fetch image metadata) and provides authentication requirement (API key as Bearer token). It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, but context from sibling names makes alternatives clear.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'GET' mapping and lists the auth requirement. However, it does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or the response format. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second adds endpoint and auth. It is front-loaded with the most important info and has no filler.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description should hint at return values. It does not mention that the response is a list of image objects or includes pagination metadata. Sibling tools are listed but no interaction guidance. This leaves a moderate gap.

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 two parameters (page, per_page). The description only mentions 'pagination' without adding detail beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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 specifies 'List images in your PixelVault project, most recent first.' This is a specific verb-resource combination with ordering, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (delete_image, get_image, upload_image) by implying a read-only listing operation.

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 states the prerequisite ('Requires a PixelVault API key sent as a Bearer token') and maps to a specific endpoint. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions, leaving usage context clear but not exhaustive.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions HTTP method (POST), authentication (Bearer token), size limit (5 MB), and formats. Does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or storage behavior. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with front-loaded action. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema, but description hints at return value ('instant CDN URL'). Covers input constraints, format, and auth. Could mention whether image ID is returned, but sufficient for a simple upload 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value beyond schema by specifying mutual exclusivity of source_url and data, explaining data as base64, and noting optional nature of folder/filename. Adds constraints not in 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?

Clearly states 'Upload an image to PixelVault and get an instant CDN URL.' Identifies the specific verb (upload), resource (image), and destination. Distinguishes from siblings like delete_image, get_image, list_images.

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?

Provides guidelines on parameter selection: 'Provide exactly one of source_url or data; optional folder and filename.' Mentions size limit, supported formats, and authentication requirement. Could explicitly contrast with siblings, but the context makes it clear this is for uploads only.

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