Build ICC Plus viewer archive

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

The description adds behavioral details like applying loading config and optional deduplicated image separation, which are not in annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting output or modifying the project, and the destructive hint is only in annotations. More transparency about side effects and failure modes would improve.

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 extraneous content. It efficiently conveys the main action and optional components.

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?

While the main action is clear, the description lacks context about the output format, how parameters affect the result, and any prerequisites. There is no output schema, and the tool has 8 parameters with minimal guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Only template_path has a description; the other seven parameters are undocumented. The description mentions loading config and image separation but does not map them to specific parameters. With low schema coverage, the lack of parameter descriptions leaves the agent guessing about required inputs.

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 tool's function: packaging the project into a viewer template, with specific details about loading config and optional image separation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on building an archive, not on editing or exporting fragments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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