analyze_image

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It names the model (MiMo-V2.5), the scope of analysis, and states results are for direct use. However, it does not specify the output format or limitations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with its purpose and then organizes when-to-use cases in a clear paragraph. It is somewhat long but every section earns its place; the parameter summary is slightly redundant but not wasteful. Efficiency is good, though not as tight as a two-sentence high example.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. The only notable gap is the lack of output format information, but overall it does not leave major ambiguities.

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 100%, with both image_path and prompt already having detailed descriptions in the schema. The description's parameter paragraph merely restates what the schema offers (image_path required, prompt optional) and adds no new semantic meaning, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it uses the MiMo-V2.5 vision model to analyze a local image and returns layout, typography, spacing, color, and visual issue analysis. This gives a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like compare_images or inspect_ui.

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 includes a dedicated '主动调用时机' (proactive invocation timing) section listing concrete triggers such as '用户要求看看/分析这张图' or when the user provides a screenshot path. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing the full 5.

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