analyze_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a clear behavioral boundary: it is a fallback for content not covered by specialized tools, and it provides comprehensive description/analysis. However, it does not describe output format, error handling, or any hidden behaviors, leaving a modest gap.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening statement, a bulleted list of use cases, and a closing fallback warning. Every line adds meaningful value with no redundancy.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides adequate invocation context. It names sibling categories to avoid mis-selection and clarifies the fallback role. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating that output is a textual analysis, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, with both parameters adequately described ('image_source' as path/URL, 'prompt' as detailed request). The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond restating the general purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific function: general image understanding for visual content not covered by specialized tools. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool categories (UI/OCR/error/chart/data visualization/video), making it distinct from all seven siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '仅在用户需要以下操作时使用' and lists conditions including when specialized tools are not applicable. It also explicitly states '这是兜底工具，优先使用更专业的工具', giving clear exclusions and prioritization.

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