tex_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds meaningful context: that the tool doesn't need a viewer and that it reports neutrality hints. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether it prints to console or returns structured data, or behavior on missing/invalid images. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, dense sentence with a clear purpose and a parenthetical rationale. It's front-loaded with the core capability (channel statistics per RGBA) followed by the use case. No wasted words, though the German language and nested clauses make it slightly dense. Efficient for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, read-only, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description covers the essential purpose well. It explains the neutrality-hints feature and the reason viewers are misleading. The main gap is lack of detail on parameter format/expected input and output presentation, but for a read-only inspection tool these are minor. Adequate for the complexity level.

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?

There's only 1 parameter (image) and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't elaborate on the image parameter beyond the tool's overall purpose—no mention of supported image formats, whether it accepts file paths vs base64, or constraints. The single parameter's semantics are largely inferable from the tool's purpose, but given 0% coverage, the description should have specified the expected format.

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: inspecting image channel statistics (min/max/mean per R/G/B/A) plus neutrality hints. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings (tex_material, tex_generate, tex_emat, tex_params) by referencing BCR/NMO/masks inspection without a viewer. It could be considered slightly verbose but purpose is distinct.

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 context for when to use it: to verify generated BCR/NMO/masks without a viewer, because viewers misinterpret data-alpha as transparency. This explains a specific usage scenario that distinguishes it from the sibling texture tools. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.

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