analyze_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'prompt' is reserved for future use and mentions security scanning in work mode, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, file format constraints, or potential errors.

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 concise with a clear upfront purpose and structured Args section. The Args section repeats schema info but is acceptable. No superfluous sentences.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately includes return type. However, it omits details on error handling, supported formats, or performance considerations. With many sibling tools, it adequately differentiates from screen capture but not from analyze_video.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains file_path and prompt, noting prompt is optional and reserved for future use. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though file_path format or constraints are not detailed.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'dropped image file', specifying sources like AirDrop, screenshot, or saved photo. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., analyze_video, capture_screen) by focusing on file analysis rather than screen capture or video.

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 mentions it works in both work and personal modes, with security scanning in work mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like understand_screen or read_screen_text, leaving some implicit differentiation.

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