image_c2pa_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that the tool reads information (non‑destructive by implication), lists the outputs ('who signed, which generator, is it marked AI-generated'), and notes the cost ('$0.01'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose details such as supported image formats, error behavior, or any required permissions. The description adds some value but is not exhaustive.

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, well‑structured sentence that front‑loads the core purpose, then enumerates the key outputs, and ends with a cost note. Each clause delivers distinct information with no redundancy. It is concise without sacrificing essential detail.

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 a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to call it correctly: it knows the input (local image path), what it will receive (credential details), and the cost. It does not cover edge cases like missing credentials or error handling, but given the low complexity, these are minor gaps. The description is essentially complete for its intended use.

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 only declares a required string parameter 'file' with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description compensates by explaining that the parameter is 'an image (local path)', clarifying that it expects a filesystem path, not a URL or raw data. This gives the agent the necessary context to provide a valid input. For a single parameter, this is sufficient semantic guidance.

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 action ('Read and validate'), a specific resource ('C2PA Content Credentials of an image'), and details exactly what is extracted ('who signed, which generator, is it marked AI-generated'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_c2pa_sign (signing) and image_ai_label (labeling). The purpose is unambiguous and leaves no room for confusion.

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 implicitly defines the use case: when you need to inspect C2PA credentials on an image, this is the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions (e.g., 'use image_c2pa_sign to add credentials'), but the specificity of the action makes the intended usage obvious. A clear context is present, though explicit contrast with siblings is missing.

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