vision_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Show') with a well-defined scope (server configuration). However, it does not mention output format, potential errors, or whether any network calls are made, which are minor omissions for such a simple status tool.

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 that immediately states the main purpose. It includes all necessary information without redundancy or 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 no-input, read-only status tool, the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool shows (provider/model and image limits), which is sufficient since there is no output schema to explain and no parameters to document.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none are needed. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 applies, and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource: the configured vision provider/model plus image limits. It distinguishes itself from the sibling image-analysis tools, which are all about processing images rather than reporting server configuration.

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 tool's role as a status/config query is implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the image-analysis siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, only a clear contextual inference from the tool name and siblings.

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