Recognize image

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

The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the default XML output format and the ability to handle local or remote images, which is not fully disclosed by the schema alone. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations, and with no annotations the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency, leaving notable gaps.

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, well-structured sentence in Chinese that is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes meaningful information about the tool's functionality and default behavior.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the input scope (local/remote), and the default output format (XML), which is particularly important since there is no output schema. It does not address return details, error handling, or constraints on input size, but for a simple recognition tool with 4 parameters and no siblings, the essential context is present.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, though it does implicitly reference local/remote sources which aligns with image_path and image_url.

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 with a specific verb '识别' (recognize) and resource '图片内容' (image content), and specifies both local and remote sources. It is concise and unambiguous, and with no sibling tools present, there is no need for differentiation.

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 purpose of the tool is implied ('帮助 AI 理解图片内容' – to help AI understand image content), which gives context for when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative tools might be preferred, so it only partially covers usage guidelines.

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