Inspect a local GIF

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description usefully corroborates and extends that: 'Reports structural damage without modifying the input' plus explicit disclosure of what is withheld (comments, application text, palette values) and that frame summaries are paginated. It does not describe error behavior for malformed/non-GIF input or output shape, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, exclusion, side-effect/privacy profile, pagination. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, 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 does the work of saying what is reported (headers, frame rects, timing, disposal, palette counts, structural damage) and how results are paged. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid path handling, whether damage reporting aborts the inspection).

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 only 33% — frame_limit and frame_offset have no schema descriptions. The description partially compensates by explaining that frame summaries are paginated with a zero-based offset, but frame_limit gets no explicit meaning (default 20, max 100) in the prose. Partial compensation for a documented gap.

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 enumerates the exact resource facets covered: headers, frame rectangles, timing, disposal, palette counts. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like abox_gif_split, abox_gif_create, or abox_video_inspect.

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?

Gives clear negative scope ('Does not decode or verify LZW pixels') and a privacy scope ('Private comments, application text and palette values are excluded'), which tells an agent when this tool is sufficient rather than a decoder. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. abox_gif_split) for pixel-level work, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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