open_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation loads into the film lab and returns a preview with the current recipe, but it does not clarify whether loading replaces the current image, mutates state, requires permissions, or how errors are handled.

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 with no redundant wording. It communicates the core action and return value efficiently.

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 has five parameters but a rich schema that fully documents them, and the description covers the main purpose and a partial return value. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves state effects and preview/recipe output structure underspecified.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting path, temperature, white_balance, input_is_linear, and input_color_space. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: loading an image or RAW into the film lab and returning a preview with the current recipe. This is clear enough to distinguish the operation from develop/export-type siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries.

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?

Usage is implied by the film-lab context and preview return, suggesting it should be used when opening an image before further processing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings such as develop, loupe, or compare.

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