extract_images_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that it returns a dictionary with image details and mentions base_url resolution, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose how edge cases are handled (e.g., invalid HTML, missing base_url, or the precise effect of min_width/min_height), leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. It begins with the core function, then provides concise parameter explanations and a return summary. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. A small gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, but that is a usage-guideline concern more than 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so all parameter meaning must come from the description. It compensates thoroughly by explaining each parameter: html content, base_url for resolving relative URLs, and min_width/min_height as filters. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema types and clearly conveys the role of each argument.

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 opens with 'Extracts all images from HTML content,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like extract_links_tool or extract_metadata_tool, which target other HTML aspects.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any alternative tools, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between extract_images_tool and its siblings. The usage context is only implicitly inferred from the tool name.

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