分析图片

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add beyond that. It discloses a key behavior: automatic switching to backup models on rate limits, timeouts, or service failures. This is valuable context not present in the annotations, with no contradictions.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary function and includes the important failover trait. Every word contributes useful information 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?

Given two fully described parameters, a clear read-only safety profile, and a simple analysis task, the description covers the essentials. It omits the return format, but since no output schema exists, a brief note could help; however, the core functionality and robustness are well described.

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%, with both 'image' and 'prompt' having descriptive text. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the 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 explicitly states the action ('analyze image') and the resource ('image'), with 'using a configurable vision model' adding specificity. Even without sibling tools to differentiate, the purpose is unmistakable and directly tied to the tool name.

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 for image analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of automatic failover suggests reliability, but no concrete usage scenarios or limitations are given.

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