upload_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose important aspects like file size limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the upload is immediate or asynchronous. Only the basic operation is described.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. While it could include more detail without becoming verbose, the current structure is efficient.

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 tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (e.g., blob reference), maximum file size, or any preconditions. An agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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 mentions supported formats but does not link them to parameters (e.g., filePath). No explanation of filePath's expected path or altText's purpose is given, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 action (upload), the resource (image file), target (AT Protocol), and purpose (for use in posts). It also specifies supported formats (JPEG, PNG, GIF, WebP), distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_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 implies usage for image uploads but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the sibling tool upload_video exists. It lacks prerequisites or conditions for use.

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