vision_crop_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains normalized coordinates and the VLM analysis but does not state that the operation is non-destructive, mention authentication or rate limits, or describe potential latency. The ambiguity around 'crop' (virtual vs. actual modification) is not resolved.

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 composed of three short paragraphs, each with a clear focus: purpose, coordinate details, and workflow. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or sections.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and coordinate system but omits explanation of several optional parameters and does not describe the return format. The workflow guidance adds context, but the lack of full parameter coverage affects completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical coordinate parameters (x, y, width, height) are normalized 0-1, which is helpful. However, it does not explain other parameters like task, prompt, include_raw, or include_source_ref, leaving gaps for the agent.

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's action: 'Crop a region of an image and analyze it with VLM.' It also specifies use cases like inspecting small text, UI elements, and chart data, and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as a zoom-in tool after broader analysis.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: 'Use vision_inspect first to get dimensions, then vision_analyze for overview, then vision_crop_analyze to zoom into specific regions.' This tells the agent exactly when and in what order to use the tool.

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