Check one photo (JPG, PNG, or HEIC): camera metadata, capture time, edit traces, and timestamp consistency. Observations suggest, never prove, how the image was made and handled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Original filename, for the report header. | |
| file_base64 | Yes | File content, base64-encoded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('Observations suggest, never prove') and lists analysis aspects, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, describe the output format, or mention potential errors or limitations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and formats. It is free of filler and every word contributes to understanding.
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 only 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description communicates purpose and a key limitation but omits expected output format and operational details. It is adequate for a simple tool but has 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 'Check' with a clear resource ('one photo') and explicitly lists supported formats (JPG, PNG, HEIC). It distinguishes the tool from siblings (compare_pdfs, verify_email, verify_pdf) by focusing on image files.
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 use for photo analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings, leaving usage guidance to inference from the tool name and file types.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: PDF comparison, email verification, PDF verification, and photo verification. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (verify_email, verify_pdf, verify_photo, compare_pdfs). The pattern is uniform with only a minor pluralization difference.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for document verification. Each tool adds distinct value without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key verification scenarios for PDFs, emails, and photos. Missing are comparisons for emails and photos, but the core functionality is complete.