vision_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only adds the stylistic promise of 'faithfully and concisely' — this is not a meaningful behavioral disclosure (e.g., side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the image is transmitted/stored). The description essentially restates the tool's name without additional context, so it fails to carry the burden that annotations would normally cover.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately names the action and object. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential usage details, so while it is concise, the structural simplicity is not an asset given the tool's complexity.

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 three parameters, one required, and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain any parameters, expected input format, return value, or edge cases. For an image-processing tool with sibling tools that likely share similar inputs, the complete lack of parameter documentation makes this definition inadequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (image, detail, max_tokens) are described in the schema's description field. The tool description also provides zero information about what these parameters mean, how they affect behavior, or what format 'image' should take (e.g., URL, file path, base64). The agent has no way to correctly fill in these fields based on the description alone.

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 verb ('describe') and resource ('visible content of an image'), and the qualifiers 'faithfully and concisely' hint at a neutral, summary-oriented output that differentiates it from siblings like vision_ocr (text extraction) or vision_analyze (deeper analysis). However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the listed siblings (vision_analyze, vision_ocr, etc.), no prerequisites, no context about input requirements, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer entirely from the name and one-line description, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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