images_inspect_dpi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: linked image bytes are never read, and rotated/skewed transforms yield a conservative singular-value range rather than an exact figure. That caveat about approximation accuracy is the kind of context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded with the primary output (DPI X/Y) before the conditional caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the behavioral caveats are covered. What is missing is any grounding of the 'path' parameter and any indication of behavior for non-PNG or linked-only images beyond the one negative statement, leaving the two required inputs 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters (path, workspaceId) are undocumented, and the description never clarifies them. It is ambiguous whether 'path' refers to a document, an element, or an image resource, and no format or resolution behavior for the path is given.

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 and resource: 'Reports effective DPI X/Y for embedded PNG images.' The scoping to embedded PNGs (plus a singular-value range for rotated/skewed transforms) is precise enough to separate it from siblings like images_manage, images_crop, or images_trace. It does not, however, name any 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other image/inspection siblings (images_manage, images_crop, images_trace, document_inspect). The 'embedded PNG' scope implies a use case, but the agent must infer that it is an inspection-only diagnostic call.

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