describe_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 states the output is a textual description for text-only models, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also adds context about handling multiple images, but omits details like output length or potential limitations, which keeps it from a 5.

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 just two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and a concise usage hint in the second sentence. It contains no redundant information and earns its place entirely.

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 tool has a comprehensive input schema and a description that covers its main purpose and appropriate use cases. Since there is no output schema, the mention of 'detailed textual description' adequately communicates the return type. The description is sufficient for the tool's complexity, though it could have added examples or error behavior.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description enriches this by noting the 'multi-upload context dumps' use case, which clarifies the intended usage of the 'images' parameter and adds value beyond the schema.

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: producing a detailed textual description of images. The phrase 'general scene/UI understanding and multi-upload context dumps' distinguishes it from specialized siblings like ocr_image or read_chart, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Prefer for general scene/UI understanding and multi-upload context dumps'), providing clear context for selection. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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