describe_imagor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned subject matter (grammar, reflected path-type parameters, current signing mode). However it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor anything about response format or cost, which matters for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Describe the imagor path grammar this server targets') before listing the included content. Slightly dense but every clause adds information; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here, and with no inputs there is little else to specify. The description is complete enough for an informational tool, though it could note the read-only nature and when to prefer it over get_imagor_skill.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter documentation burden. The mention of 'parameters reflected from imagor's own path type' refers to the tool's output, not inputs, so it adds no schema-relevant meaning.

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: it describes the imagor path grammar the server targets, and names the concrete content (path-type parameters, signing mode). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_imagor_skill or list_imagor_filters, but an agent can tell it is the grammar/config reference tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's nature: call it when you need to know the path grammar or signing mode before building or validating paths. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. vs get_imagor_skill) are given.

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