vision.ask

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses mode-dependent behavior, the default (off), and that client mode returns an MCP image content block judged by the client model. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior for the endpoint path, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the definition is a single dense block overloaded with parentheticals and environment-variable names. It is information-rich yet hard to scan, with the mode mechanics and the off-state caveat competing for attention.

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 an enhancement tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mode strategies, the default state, and the return format in client mode. What an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it is largely present, though endpoint-path behavior remains thin.

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 100%, so the schema already documents box, from, and prompt (including that prompt is used in endpoint mode). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 resource (a universal image-recognition enhancement entry) and explicitly frames it as an enhancement layer rather than the main path. It distinguishes itself from the deterministic evidence siblings (ui.snapshot/ui2.*) and notes endpoint mode is 'same as vision.vlm', giving partial sibling differentiation.

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?

Explains when each strategy applies via MAH_VISION_MODE (client/endpoint/off) and states the default is off with reliance on deterministic evidence layers instead. It hints at the vision.vlm alternative but does not give an explicit 'prefer X over this tool when…' rule.

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