get_image_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that no API calls or quota are consumed, which confirms a safe local read. However, it omits error behavior for missing/inaccessible paths and does not explicitly frame the operation as read-only and side-effect free.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the cost/constraint note second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter local read tool with no output schema, the description names the returned values (dimensions, format, size) and the no-quota trait, which covers nearly everything an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain around failure modes.

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 100% ('Ruta local o file:// de la imagen'), so the single path parameter is already well documented. The description adds no format examples or path-handling nuances beyond the schema, making baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lee dimensiones, formato y tamaño de un archivo de imagen local') with three named return fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings edit_image/generate_image, but the read-only inspection framing makes the difference evident in practice.

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 qualifier 'local' plus 'No consume API ni cuota' implies the correct context (local files, free to call), but it never states when to prefer this over edit_image or generate_image, nor any prerequisites such as file existence or permissions.

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