add_image

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses supported image formats (PNG, JPG, GIF, BMP) and the parameter behavior (default sizes), but does not mention side effects, error handling, or permission requirements. Adequate for a simple add operation.

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 concise: a single sentence for the purpose, followed by a clean bullet list for parameters. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics. It does not mention return values (but output schema exists, so not required). It assumes basic knowledge of file paths. Sibling tools provide differentiation context. Complete enough for a straightforward add-image tool.

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 provides all parameter explanations. It adds meaning beyond schema types: clarifies that width/height defaults use original or scale proportionally, alignment options are 'LEFT', 'CENTER', 'RIGHT', and image_path lists supported formats.

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 starts with '在文档末尾添加图片。' which clearly states the action (add image) and the location (at the end of the document). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'insert_image_after_paragraph' which inserts at a specific position.

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 by stating 'add at end of document', but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_image_after_paragraph' or 'replace_image'. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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