image_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by specifying exactly what will be returned: dimensions, size, and SHA-256. This makes the tool's behavior predictable without overclaiming. Minor omitted details like error behavior for unsupported formats are not critical given the simple 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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence states the operation, accepted formats, and expected return values with no filler. Every element earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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, single-parameter inspection tool, the description plus annotations cover the safety profile and return content. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of returned dimensions, size, and SHA-256 is necessary and sufficient. Slightly more detail about unsupported formats or error handling would push this to 5, but it is already complete enough.

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% for the single path parameter, including workspace-relative and absolute path semantics. The description does not add further parameter detail, but the schema already fully carries that burden, so a baseline score 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 the verb ('Inspect'), the resource ('local PNG, JPEG, or WebP image'), and the outputs ('dimensions, size, and SHA-256'). It also distinguishes this tool from generic siblings like file_info by scoping it to image files and their specific metadata.

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 implies usage: local image files in supported formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for non-image files, nor does it mention alternatives like file_info or read_file for other cases. Context is clear but exclusions or sibling routing are absent.

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