sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 1–12 image cap, the 2000 px-per-image limit, and default label behavior, but says nothing about permissions, output format, or failure modes for a tool whose output is an image.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a constraint tip and per-parameter notes. Dense but every line contributes; nothing is padded.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, limits, and all three parameters adequately. Minor gaps around return behavior remain but are not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents paths as absolute with a 1–12 range, labels as matching the path count with a number+filename default, and mode as mirroring view with the valid values enumerated.

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 states a specific verb+resource: composing several images onto one sheet with captions for side-by-side comparison. It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like grid, compare_views, or compare_parts.

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?

Usage is only implied via the limit-saving tip (use when a conversation exceeds 20 images). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over view, grid, or compare_views, nor any exclusion criteria.

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