inspect_image

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'without modifying it,' adding value by specifying what the tool reports (size, ratio, hash, alpha). Beyond that, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes or prerequisites, but the read-only safety profile is fully covered.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The core action and outputs are front-loaded, making the description immediately useful.

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?

For a tool with one simple parameter and a read-only operation, the description covers the action, outputs, and non-modifying behavior. Although return format and error conditions are not specified, the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the task mean the description is nearly sufficient.

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 has a single 'path' parameter with no description, and the tool description also omits any explanation of the parameter. Although strong context clues (e.g., 'local image') imply path is the file location, the description provides no explicit semantics, leaving a gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 a clear verb ('decode'), a specific resource ('local image'), and the exact outputs (size, ratio, hash, alpha). It is easily distinguishable from siblings: status (server state) and generate_image (creation), so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 inspecting an existing local image and explicitly notes it does not modify the file. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the decision to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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