macos_image_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata but does not cover error handling (e.g., invalid paths), performance aspects, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with the file system.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get image metadata') and lists specific metadata types without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally complete. It specifies what metadata is retrieved but omits details on return structure, error cases, and operational constraints, which are important for a file-based tool with no annotations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as file format support or path validation rules, so it meets the baseline for adequate but minimal parameter information.

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 specific action ('Get image metadata') and enumerates the exact types of metadata returned (dimensions, format, color space, bit depth), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like macos_image_convert or macos_image_resize that perform different operations on images.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions, or comparisons with other image-related tools like macos_image_convert, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name and description.

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