judge_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the return shape and the JUDGE_URL/JUDGE_MODEL prerequisites, but it does not clarify side effects, failure behavior, or permission requirements. This is partial but meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, then the return values, then the environment prerequisites. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, though it does summarize them. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves gaps around the path parameter and does not explain how this differs from sibling judging tools such as run_judged.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the rubric parameter as either a path to a rubric JSON file or the JSON itself, and clarifies the description parameter as what the image must show. However, the path parameter is only implicitly described as the image path, and no format or constraints are given.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Judge one image with a rubric ... against a description of what it must show.' That is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as run_judged or get_judged.

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 states what the tool does and mentions required environment variables, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like run_judged. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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