image.inspect

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by enumerating exactly what aspects of the image are inspected, including packed state and absolute path, and by emphasizing the exact-match scope.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned attributes compactly, every phrase earning its place.

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 one-parameter read-only inspect tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the target, the scope, and the inspected aspects. It does not cover edge cases like missing images, but with output schema and read-only annotations available, that is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by indicating that the input identifies one exact Blender image data-block, making 'image_name' reasonably clear. However, it does not explain whether the name is the data-block name, a file name, or a path, nor does it address case sensitivity or lookup behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('one exact Blender image data-block'), and lists concrete fields that will be returned (path, dimensions, color space, users, packed state). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like image.load and other inspect tools by scoping to a single named image data-block.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to retrieve details about one exact image data-block by name. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as image.load or the other inspect tools, so the guidance relies on inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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