Inspect a local DICOM image

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds material behavior: sequences and unsupported transforms are refused, output excludes patient names/dates/private values/identifiers, and no browser is required. It stops short of describing failure modes or error reporting.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the accepted-input scope. Dense with domain jargon (PS3.10, RLE, transfer syntax) but every sentence carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return as 'technical shape and counts' minus identifiers, which is enough for an agent to know what to expect. A note on what a refusal looks like would close the remaining 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents input_path fully (absolute local path, URLs/network shares refused). The description adds only the "requires no browser" framing, which is marginal for this dimension; baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (DICOM PS3.10 files) with explicit scope limits: bounded, flat, known native transfer syntaxes, strict one-frame RLE/JPEG-lossless subsets. This clearly separates it from abox_dicom_render, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

"Checks compressed geometry and complete stream structure before source decoding" implies its role as a pre-flight validation step before rendering, which is real usage context. It does not explicitly say when to prefer abox_dicom_render instead or what to do when the inspection is refused.

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