Inspect a single photo at up to 1024 px with measured quality to verify focus on eyes, expression, or detail before deciding.
Return one photo as an image you can look at (up to 1024 px), with its measured quality. Use it to check focus on the eyes, expression or detail before deciding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | ||
| size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns an image plus measured quality and enforces a 1024 px ceiling, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-mutating, or free of side effects.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately.
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 simple two-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content and the main use case. However, it leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained and does not describe basic operational constraints beyond the maximum preview size.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the file and size concepts indirectly through 'one photo' and 'up to 1024 px'; it does not name the required file parameter, the optional size parameter, its default, or its minimum value.
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 and resource: returns one photo as a viewable image capped at 1024 px, along with measured quality. That distinguishes it from batch-oriented siblings like contact_sheet or assess_photos, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with resize_image.
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 intended use: inspect focus on the eyes, expression, or detail before deciding. It does not specify when not to use it or explicitly direct the agent to a sibling alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.