describe_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool can perform visual understanding and answer arbitrary questions, and it supports one or more images. It does not hide side effects because there appear to be none; however, it does not detail limitations like image format support or potential model errors, though these are not critical.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and provides relevant examples without unnecessary filler. Every phrase contributes 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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the core purpose, examples, and flexibility of questions. The schema provides complete parameter details, so the description need not explain them again. A minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling tool, but the description is still sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters (image_paths and question) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only emphasizing that the question can be arbitrary. Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs visual understanding on images and allows arbitrary questions, with concrete examples like describing content, recognizing objects, analyzing charts, and understanding screenshots. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ocr_image, which is likely text-focused.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool—any visual understanding task with arbitrary questions—and lists several use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to ocr_image, but the examples imply broad applicability beyond simple OCR.

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