Preflight Store Image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses two important behaviors: it reads the file header rather than trusting the extension, and it returns all problems at once rather than stopping at the first. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but the preflight nature strongly implies a non-mutating check.

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 front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: one explains file-header reading, another explains aggregate error reporting. It is compact with no 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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, timing, and key behavioral quirks well. It could further name related siblings like preflight_screenshot_set, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both image_path and image_type clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already structured, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Check one image against Play's rules') and a specific resource ('one image'), with a clear pre-upload context. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like preflight_screenshot_set by emphasizing it handles one image rather than a set.

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 clearly signals this is a pre-upload validation step ('before uploading it') and explains that its batch reporting supports a single fix round-trip. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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