Ask a human for a photo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the human-in-the-loop prompt, the Decline option, every terminal status (SHARED, DECLINED, NO ANSWER, EXPIRED), that the image is returned for direct viewing, and a 7-day link lifetime after which the photo is deleted. Retention and outcome semantics are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, return statuses, retention. The capability statement is front-loaded and the operational caveat (7-day link, deletion) is placed last where it belongs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the return statuses and the shape of a success result (link plus image). Combined with complete schema coverage on all four parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (question, details, timeout_seconds, require_biometric) are already documented, and the schema even supplies defaults and bounds. The description reinforces the flow ('they get a prompt and choose...') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the human who owns this phone for one picture') and immediately defines the scope that separates it from siblings like get_location: something only the human can visually show you. An agent can pick this over ask_approval or send_notification without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition with concrete examples ('a label, a screen, a whiteboard, a damaged part'), which implicitly rules out cases where get_location or an automated lookup would do. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating an explicit when-not-to-use, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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