Check image upload limits

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

Without annotations, the description usefully discloses that no image file is transmitted, clarifying this is a static metadata-only check. It does not disclose return semantics (pass/fail shape), permission needs, or whether limits are static, which are notable gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentences with zero waste, front-loading the check scope and following with the key behavioral constraint that no file is sent.

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 four-parameter validator, the description gives enough to identify what is checked and that no upload occurs. With no output schema or annotations, it should say more about result semantics and the source of the limits, so it remains incomplete but usable.

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%, but the description names the four checked attributes—format, byte size, width, and height—which map directly to the required parameters. It still does not specify accepted format strings, size units, or dimension units beyond the schema's basic 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and the exact attributes checked: file format, byte size, and dimensions, against Image Unblur limits. The scope is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool (the listed siblings are unrelated).

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?

Implies use for validating upload metadata before sending an image, reinforced by 'No image file is sent.' However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives.

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