assess_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that flags are relative to the set (soft, dark, bright, duplicate) and that regional sharpness prevents penalizing a sharp subject on a blurred background. It frames flags as evidence rather than verdicts, though it doesn't describe the return format or processing cost.

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 measurement actions, followed by flag semantics and the follow-up instruction. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read/analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what is measured, how flags are interpreted, and the recommended verification workflow. Sufficient for correct invocation, though return structure is unspecified.

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 lane and files are already documented by the schema. The description adds meaning about set-relative scoring and per-region analysis but nothing specific about parameter syntax or interaction between lane and files. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs and resources: measures sharpness per region, exposure, clipping, finds near-duplicate bursts, marks sharpest frame, and ranks the set. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like contact_sheet and preview_image, which are mentioned as follow-ups rather than overlapping tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to treat flags as evidence and to consult contact_sheet or preview_image before rejecting a photo, naming the alternatives and the workflow context. It does not state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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