debug-image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'mock' and 'directory restrictions' but does not detail behavior (e.g., return values, side effects, or the nature of the mock).

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 very concise (six words) with no waste, but it may be too terse for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It is adequately sized for a simple tool but lacks important context.

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 description does not complete the picture: no output schema, no explanation of return values, and no details on the mock behavior or directory restrictions. Given the three parameters and lack of annotations, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying directory restrictions. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 'Mock image processing with directory restrictions,' which gives a general idea but lacks specificity about the operations (e.g., resize, thumbnail, convert). It distinguishes from siblings (calculator, database, etc.) but does not use a clear verb+resource construction.

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, when not to, or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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