Analyse images

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

"Read-only" is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context the annotations do not: paged results via offset/nextOffset, and the critical operational note that allowed directories are "(none configured)", which tells an agent calls may fail or be scoped to nothing. The depth/slowness tradeoff is stated but partly duplicates the deep param's schema text.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary output, then the deep mode, then the safety/paging constraints. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical "(candidate formats, sizes, quality target, output path)" is the only slightly verbose stretch.

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?

With 12 parameters, nested objects and no output schema, the description does the minimum: it names the reported fields and the plan contents, but never describes the result envelope (per-file entries, nextOffset, error behavior for disallowed paths). The biggest gap is failing to say that policy/target/widths/resize/crop only affect the displayed plan, leaving an agent to guess.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description explains deep, paths and offset/nextOffset paging, but ignores the nine output-shaping parameters (crop, resize, widths, target, policy, metadata, priority, limit) — an agent reading only the description would not know these merely annotate the deep plan rather than change the scan.

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?

States a specific verb (scan/report) and resource (image files, folders, globs) plus exactly what is reported: format, size, dimensions, transparency, animation. It also distinguishes its two modes (shallow vs deep) and names the sibling whose plan it previews, so an agent can separate it from optimize_images without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger for the expensive mode ("With deep: true, also classify...") and implicitly routes the agent to optimize_images when it wants to act on the reported plan. It does not state when to prefer compare_images or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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