run_image

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Runs Radiance if present, else returns the commands.' This is valuable because it tells the agent the tool may not execute but instead return shell commands. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits details about side effects, file modifications, or error handling. It adds some transparency but is far from comprehensive for a 14-parameter tool.

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 that front-loads the purpose and then lists the pipeline steps. It is concise and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the jargon-laden pipeline could benefit from a bit more clarity, and the sentence structure is a run-on with multiple dashes, but it remains efficient and reasonably structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that we cannot see), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what each parameter does, or what constitutes a successful call. An agent would be unable to correctly use this tool based solely on the description, making it contextually incomplete.

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 zero explanation of any of the 14 parameters. It doesn't mention scene_sets, view, quality, fov_weighting, or any other parameter, leaving the agent completely in the dark about how to configure the tool. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, and it fails entirely.

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's purpose: a fisheye HCL image workflow, and enumerates the pipeline steps (rpict, luminance maps, ipRGC weighting, RGB-from-HDR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_grid or run_annual which target different rendering tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly name the resource as 'run_image' or contrast with specific siblings, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Fisheye HCL' which implies a scenario, but it doesn't explicitly state 'use this for fisheye images' or 'use run_grid for workplane grids.' There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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