inspect_image

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by listing the specific metadata categories inspected, including the noteworthy GPS/PII check, which goes beyond the annotation fields.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then uses a colon-delimited list of concrete inspected properties. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the single simple parameter, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that fully define the operation's safety and idempotence, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even calls out the privacy-relevant GPS/PII aspect, which is useful context.

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?

There is only one parameter, revision_id, and the schema description covers it fully (100% coverage), including the 'rev_...' format. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a revision'), then enumerates exactly what is inspected: dimensions, MIME type, byte size, alpha/ICC, EXIF, and GPS/PII presence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like render_preview or compare_revisions.

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 its use case (metadata inspection of a revision) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusionary or comparative statements referencing sibling tools.

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