describe_pasted_images

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It reveals key behaviors: parallel recognition, use of actual uploaded images rather than clipboard content, and restriction to a single recent message. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without requiring annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: three sentences that front-load the core function, then explain the applicable scenario and the critical constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description adequately covers the main purpose, usage context, and important behavioral constraints. It could mention what happens if no images are found, but that is not essential for tool selection and invocation.

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 detailed property descriptions. The tool description indirectly clarifies that prompt is for recognition and max_count limits the number of images, but this is already in the schema. No additional parametric insight is provided.

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 the action (extract pasted/uploaded images and recognize them) and the specific resource (images from the user's most recent message). It also distinguishes itself by mentioning the [Unsupported Image] scenario, setting it apart from sibling tools like describe_image or describe_images_in_folder.

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 explicit applicability (when images appear as [Unsupported Image] in conversation) and scoping (only the most recent user message with images). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context and sibling list imply when this tool is the right choice.

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