arachne_vision

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

The description lists what the tool does (OCR, color palette, etc.) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like side effects, auth requirements, or limits. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, which is partially met.

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 sentence listing capabilities, which is concise and front-loaded. However, some structure (e.g., separating capabilities) could improve readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe return values. It lists capabilities but does not specify output format or behavior of each analysis, leaving gaps. Context signals indicate moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: the schema already describes 'image_url' and 'question' with details. The list of capabilities does not directly map to parameters, offering no additive value.

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 'Analyze an image' and lists specific capabilities (OCR, color palette, face detection, quality metrics, AI description), distinguishing this tool from siblings which focus on browser, extraction, or transcription tasks.

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 usage for image analysis tasks, and sibling names (e.g., arachne_transcribe, arachne_scrape) suggest different domains. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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