get_graphic_reasoning_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description takes responsibility. It declares the tool is read-only and lists scaffold components. It also clarifies what the tool does not do. However, it does not describe the output schema or any side effects beyond being read-only.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clarifying details. No extraneous information.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what is needed: the tool's function, components, and limitations. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 are no parameters, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 it returns a read-only method scaffold for graphic reasoning, listing specific components and explicitly stating what it does not do, which distinguishes it from sibling scaffold tools.

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 getting a scaffold for graphic reasoning but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative scaffolds. The negative list ('does not inspect images...') provides some context but lacks direct usage recommendations.

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