batch_check_image_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only; writes nothing.' This is a valuable, non-obvious disclosure about side effects. It does not go further into permissions or edge cases, but it covers the primary behavioral concern.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise safety/usage note. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 description covers purpose, safety, and a clear use case, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with 9 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves parameter semantics and default behavior underspecified. It is adequate for a first correct invocation but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool has 9 parameters. The description only mentions 'specification' in general terms and does not explain how parameters like pattern, recursive, orientation, or min/max dimensions map to that specification. Parameter names are suggestive, but the description itself provides almost no semantic value beyond the schema titles.

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 verb ('Audit') and resource ('a folder') plus the precise condition ('which images already satisfy a specification'). The batch/folder framing clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like check_image_spec.

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?

It gives explicit use context: 'Use it to triage a folder before editing.' This tells an agent when it is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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