analyze_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying model and language support but does not describe return format, side effects, permissions, or any operational constraints, leaving the behavior largely unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the primary function and language support, but it omits potentially valuable guidance on usage and behavior, so it is not maximally concise in the sense of covering all essentials.

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 tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema), but the description lacks any indication of return values or expected output behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's result.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already defines, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool uses GLM-4V Flash to analyze image content, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like describe_image or extract_text, leaving overlap in intent ambiguous.

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 such as describe_image or extract_text. The description only states what it does, offering no contextual advice or exclusions.

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