Hospedar imagem (link público)

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: returns public URL, default permanence, optional expiry, no authentication needed, and privacy warning. It could additionally disclose rate limits or file size caps, but the provided information is sufficient for safe use.

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 concise and well-structured, covering purpose, behavior, and a security note in a few sentences. It is not overly verbose, though it could benefit from clearer separation between purpose and behavioral details.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (public URL). It covers both modes, supported image types (from parameter), and important caveats. It is complete for a straightforward image hosting tool, missing only potential constraints like max file size.

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 has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage. The main description adds value by explaining the 'expires' parameter in terms of actual services (catbox.moe vs. litterbox) and default behavior. The 'images' parameter is adequately described in the 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?

Description clearly states it uploads local images to free hosting and returns a direct public URL. It specifies the use case: for platforms needing the image link, not the file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_image or edit_image.

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?

Description mentions no signup or API key needed, and explains the two modes (permanent vs. temporary). It provides a security warning. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like a generic file upload, but the context of siblings makes the use case clear.

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