Inspect artwork

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

The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance: it reports raw file-declared values rather than making interpretive judgements. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the tool's non-evaluative stance and what specific attributes it exposes.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core action and resource, the enumeration adds concrete detail, and the final sentence disambiguates from print-readiness tools. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it reports, and what it deliberately does not do. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and to interpret the result as a factual metadata report rather than a print-readiness verdict.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the file parameter is already well documented as a path relative to the artwork root. The description adds context about what will be read from that file but does not add new meaning specific to the file parameter itself, which aligns with the baseline score.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('technical properties of an artwork file') and enumerates concrete properties it inspects: pixel size, resolution, colour space, ICC profile, transparency, and content placement. It further distinguishes itself from print-related siblings by explicitly saying it makes no judgement about whether the file can be printed.

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 clearly frames this as an inspection tool for reading what the file reports, and the explicit disclaimer 'makes no judgement about whether it can be printed' implies the agent should look elsewhere for print-readiness evaluation. It does not name sibling tools like check_print_readiness or suggest_fixes directly, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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