detect_ai_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the result class ('editable source observations and limitations'), explicitly bounds reliability (not authenticated origin or exact model attribution), and flags a capability gap (no pixel-model fallback). It still says nothing about auth, upload persistence, file-size limits, or processing cost.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the caveats. Every clause adds a constraint, though the middle sentence packs result semantics and disclaimers densely.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and results; it partially does by characterizing the return as source observations and limitations. Still missing are upload/retention behavior, auth or rate-limit expectations, and any sense of how 'editable source observations' are shaped.

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 100%, so all three input paths (local path, direct URL, base64) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (upload an image) and the actual analysis performed (header/source-clue inspection), and explicitly disclaims what it does NOT return (authenticated origin, exact model attribution). It doesn't name the sibling inspect_c2pa_provenance, so the routing distinction is only implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement ('header/source-clue inspection') and the negative caveats rule out some intents, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that provenance questions belong to the sibling.

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