mimo_describe_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool delegates image understanding to an external model (MiMo-V2.5), which is a key behavioral trait beyond the name. It also mentions accepted input types (local paths, public URLs, pasted images) but omits potential caveats like privacy, failure modes, or latency. Still, the core delegation behavior is transparently disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the critical usage condition, and structured logically: first the fallback purpose, then the action, and finally the prohibition. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

Overall, the description is sufficient for tool selection: it clarifies the fallback scenario, the input sources, and the output type. However, it is less complete for invocation because several parameter semantics are missing and there is no guidance on how to configure 'thinking' or 'extract_pasted' for different use cases. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but the input parameter ambiguity lowers the completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain most parameters. It indirectly describes the 'images' parameter by mentioning local paths, URLs, and pasted images, but 'question', 'thinking', and 'extract_pasted' are left completely unexplained. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema docs but only partially does so, this is a significant gap.

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 identifies the tool as a fallback vision recognition tool that sends images to the MiMo-V2.5 model and returns textual descriptions. It specifies the resource (images) and the action (describe), and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on browsing, recording, or table manipulation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (only when the current main model is a pure-text model that cannot recognize images) and when it is absolutely forbidden (when the main model already has native multimodal capabilities). It also lists alternatives by naming the multimodal models that should be used instead, providing clear and complete usage guidance.

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