Test Images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what is inspected but does not state whether the tool only reads data, how it navigates pages, what limits apply, or whether any side effects occur. There is no contradiction because annotations are absent.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the core idea without filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter semantics and usage guidance, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return structure is likely covered, but the description leaves parameter meanings, invocation context, and selection criteria unexplained. For a QA tool competing with five siblings, this level of detail is insufficient for confident tool selection and use.

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 never mentions 'target' or 'max_pages'. 'Target' is ambiguous (URL, directory, or selector?), and 'max_pages' is only documented via its schema default, leaving the agent to infer its meaning and relationship to the tool's behavior.

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 identifies the resource (images) and a specific set of defect categories: broken, distorted, blurry, heavy, and missing alt. The qualifier 'только измеримое' (only measurable) narrows scope and distinguishes it from broader QA siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'test' or 'check'.

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 siblings such as test_layout, test_fonts, or test_interactions. The image-domain cue is implicit, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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