describe_image_gemini

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only adds one non-deterministic output trait. It does not mention read-only nature, external API calls, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The 'never a deterministic acceptance verdict' is useful but minimal.

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 one focused sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and a key limitation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'visual evidence' looks like, how parameters influence behavior, or any operational details. Clearly inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters (images, model, roots, prompt, dry_run, operation, timeout_ms). The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of param documentation.

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 returns QA-only visual evidence and explicitly denies deterministic acceptance verdicts, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool agy_visual_doctor, though the QA-only scope helps distinguish it from a verification tool.

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 provides clear usage context: use for QA visual evidence, and a when-not: never for deterministic acceptance. It implies alternatives for acceptance checks but does not name any tool directly. This is clear context without explicit alternative listing.

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