vision_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT call a VLM, implying it is lightweight and non-destructive. This is critical behavioral context.

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, no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 metadata inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. However, the lack of parameter documentation is a minor gap. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 0% (no descriptions in input schema), so description must compensate. However, the description does not explain what 'image_source' expects (e.g., file path, URL) or the effect of 'include_source_ref'. The agent receives no added meaning beyond parameter names.

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 it inspects image metadata (dimensions, format, size, mode) and distinguishes itself from detailed analysis tools like vision_analyze. The verb 'inspect' plus specific metadata fields make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises using this before detailed analysis to understand dimensions and plan crop coordinates. This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus siblings like vision_analyze or vision_crop_analyze.

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