refer_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait ('Grounds every claim in image labels') but does not mention output format, error handling, or potential side effects. This is a minimal but non-empty disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses illustrative examples without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is clear and readable.

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 Q&A tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core use case, differentiates from many siblings, and aligns with the schema's parameter intent. It lacks explicit return-value specifications, but the schema and examples cover the main selection and invocation needs.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds examples of label usage and prompt wording, reinforcing the schema's label semantics, but does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already details.

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 ('Answer') and a clear resource ('question that refers to specific uploads by label'). It provides concrete examples ('refer image 1 and 2', 'only the second screenshot') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on multi-image labeled references and grounding claims in labels.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool through examples of referring to specific uploads by label. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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