image_compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It notes that a composite is created, but fails to disclose what happens to the composite (returned, saved, displayed) or any side effects. It also lacks details on error behavior or required permissions for reading image sources. This is a significant gap for a tool without structured safety hints.

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 compact: two sentences stating purpose and then a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns or produces. It only says 'View' without explaining whether the composite is returned as an image, saved, or displayed inline. It also omits any mention of error handling or constraints on input sizes. For a tool that generates a composite, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must define each parameter. It does so effectively: source_a and source_b as image paths or URLs, and max_dimension as the longest edge with a default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 verb (View) and resource (two images side by side in a single composite), with an explicit purpose of visual comparison. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_view or image_transform without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for visual comparison' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. It offers only implicit context.

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