convert_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions capabilities (scaling, optimizing, DPI control) but does not state whether the operation modifies the input file, whether it overwrites output paths, or any error conditions or limitations (e.g., some formats may not support certain options). The description lacks transparency about side effects and operational 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose (image format conversion) followed by supported formats and capabilities. There is no fluff or repetition. It is well-structured for quick parsing, though the long list of formats makes it slightly dense. Overall, it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 has a nested options object with many parameters, two required fields, and no output schema. The description provides a high-level overview but omits critical details: what happens when output_path is omitted, whether input_path must be absolute, default behaviors (e.g., quality defaults), and the role of options like interlace or background_color. Given this complexity, the description is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly without further investigation.

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 schema description coverage is 75%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping '可缩放' to width/height and '控制 DPI' to density, but it does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., how maintain_aspect_ratio works when both width and height are given) or the meaning of options like color_space or strip_metadata beyond what the schema already states. The description supplements the schema but does not compensate for the missing 25%.

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 clearly states the tool's function: converting image formats, with a specific verb (转换) and resource (图片格式). It lists a wide range of supported formats and additional capabilities like resizing, optimization, and DPI control. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like convert_media (media) and convert_document (documents) based on format type.

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 for image files (图片格式互转), which naturally separates it from document and media conversions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions, such as handling video or audio formats. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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