get_images_info

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

Discloses it returns metadata, not content. With no annotations, this is adequate but lacks details on error handling or performance considerations. For a simple read tool, it sufficiently covers core behavior.

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?

Extremely concise (3 sentences in description, plus Args/Returns), front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for its purpose. Returns JSON list of metadata. Minor gap: no mention of file format validation or error states, but acceptable for this 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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: file_path is document path, include_tables includes table images with default true. Bridges all gaps.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves metadata (not content) from Word document images. Differentiates from sibling 'read_images' by explicitly noting no image content returned.

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?

Explicitly states intended use: '用于在读取图片前了解文档中图片的结构和位置' (use before reading images). Provides clear context but no explicit when-not or alternative tools.

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