analyze_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions supported image formats but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, has file size limits, or any side effects. For a tool that analyzes images, it likely does not modify anything, but this is not stated.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and supported formats. No fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 description is complete enough for a simple tool with a clear purpose, but it lacks details about optional parameters (width, height, prompt) and any output expectations. With 4 parameters and no output schema, a bit more context would be helpful, such as the effect of resizing or custom prompts.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Analyzes an image') and the output ('returns a detailed description'). It also specifies supported formats (PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP, BMP), which adds clarity. However, it does not differentiate from potential sibling tools, though none are listed.

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 when to use the tool (when an image needs analysis) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Since no sibling tools exist, this is adequate but not explicit.

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