Search by local image file

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that computation happens locally and the file is never uploaded, which is a meaningful privacy guarantee not inferable from schema or annotations. It also specifies exact-image search semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and the most important behavioral constraint front-loaded. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with a full output schema, rich annotations, and complete schema descriptions, the description covers all essential selection and invocation information. The only slight gap is explicit routing to hash-based siblings, but that doesn't affect invocation correctness.

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%, and the schema already explains path as an absolute regular-file path and site as an enum with default. The description adds the local SHA-1 computation context, which helps clarify why the path is needed, but does not need to restate parameter details. Baseline 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?

States a precise action: read one absolute local file, compute SHA-1 locally, and perform exact image search. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eh_search_by_hash and other gallery-search tools. The 'file is never uploaded' detail further clarifies the local-file nature.

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 use when the agent has a user-selected absolute local file and wants an exact image match, and the schema reinforces path constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when a hash is already available, prefer eh_search_by_hash). Usage context is clear but exclusion guidance is absent.

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