Check Image Provenance

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the tool reads metadata, the caveat about screenshots, and the meaning of missing credentials. It also instructs the agent to always read the 'what_this_does_not_mean' field, which is a useful transparency detail not available from annotations.

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 three well-structured sentences that front-load the main purpose and then efficiently covers caveats and an instruction. Every sentence adds necessary value with no fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only tool with a single parameter and existing output schema, the description addresses the key pitfalls (false negatives, data loss on re-save, misinterpretation). It explains what the tool does and does not do, and points to a result field for further context, making it complete for its scope.

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% as the single 'path' parameter has a description. The description text does not add extra parameter-level details, but given the high schema coverage, 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 starts with a specific verb ('Read') and detailed resource ('C2PA Content Credential embedded in a single image file'), clearly stating what the tool does and what it reports. It also distinguishes itself from being a generic image analyzer by explicitly saying it does not analyze pixels, which differentiates from sibling 'scan_directory'.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and its limitations (e.g., 'cannot detect AI generation on its own', 'missing or invalid credential is not evidence'). It implicitly covers when-not-to-use by warning against overreliance on its output, though it doesn't name an alternative tool or provide an explicit 'use this when' statement.

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