restore_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without mentioning effects (e.g., destructive nature, auth requirements, rate limits) or any 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?

The description is extremely brief (4 words), which sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not provide enough detail to fully understand the tool's operation, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.

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 complexity (image restoration with a scale parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what 'restore' means, how the scale parameter works, or what the output looks like.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 2 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; the schema already provides adequate descriptions. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Restore / enhance image quality' clearly states the tool's purpose and resource (image quality). It uses a specific verb and resource, but lacks differentiation from siblings like upscale_image, as it doesn't specify what restoration entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upscale_image or convert_image_format. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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