analyze_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns multiple technical fields plus a `human_summary`, and explicitly warns against citing technical values in human-facing text. This goes beyond the schema and adds crucial behavioral context, though it doesn't describe the content of human_summary or any 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the warning is clearly separated. The second sentence is somewhat verbose with repeated emphasis ('IMPORTANTE', 'NUNCA'), but it's still compact and every part earns its place.

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's low complexity (one param, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what output fields exist, and how to handle them. It doesn't fully describe the content of `human_summary` or edge cases, but it's complete enough for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter image_url is described as 'URL da imagem do produto'). The description adds only that the URL is for a product image, which is already implied by the schema and tool name, so it provides no meaningful additional parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('analisa') and resource ('imagem de um produto (por URL)'), and enumerates the analyzed aspects: resolução, proporção, fundo, nitidez, prontidão. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_url or ocr_image, which target other concerns.

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 provides a strong when-not instruction: use `human_summary` for the store owner and never expose internal diagnostic fields to humans. It doesn't mention alternatives or explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, but the context makes it clear it's for product image quality assessment.

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