Describe image (vision bridge)

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 mentions 'multi-model fallback' and 'sidecar vision model', but does not disclose key behaviors like error handling, image format support, or output structure. The description is also incomplete, ending abruptly, which reduces transparency.

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 the most critical information (requirement for text-only models), but it is cut off and includes a markdown heading that breaks flow. It could be more concise and structured without the abrupt ending.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error cases, and behavior details. The current description is incomplete and leaves the agent with significant unknowns regarding what the tool produces and how it behaves.

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 50%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain 'source', 'context', 'question', or 'mode' beyond what the schema already provides. For undocumented parameters like 'context', no guidance is given.

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 tool converts images to detailed text and indicates it's required when the main model cannot see images (e.g., DeepSeek text). This provides a clear verb+resource purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_images' or 'extract_text'.

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 gives specific context for when to use the tool (when main model cannot see images, user attaches image/screenshot) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or how to choose among siblings. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit alternatives.

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