image_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns and that it can accept a URL, implying network access. However, it does not mention potential latency, errors on inaccessible sources, or any side effects, which are relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 two concise sentences with an Args section, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the purpose, input, and a summary of what metadata is extracted. Missing error handling or performance notes, but for a single-param read-only tool, it is largely complete.

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 only defines 'source' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining it accepts a local file path or direct http(s) URL, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get' and the resource 'image metadata', enumerating specific items (format, dimensions, mode, file size, EXIF summary). It also distinguishes from viewing by saying 'without viewing it', which differentiates it from sibling image_view and media_probe.

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 'without viewing it' implies it is an alternative to viewing tools, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or give conditions for when to use this tool over image_ocr, image_transform, or media_probe. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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