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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns image data as base64, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify error handling (e.g., for invalid paths), performance considerations, or file format support. It adds some context about the return format being renderable by Claude, which is useful beyond basic functionality.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return value information. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies the output format. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on error conditions, supported image types, or how it interacts with siblings. Without an output schema, it helpfully explains the return value, but more context could improve agent decision-making.

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 100% description coverage, with 'imagePath' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or edge cases). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Display') and resource ('an image from the filesystem'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'image-info' (which likely provides metadata) and 'list-images' (which enumerates files), though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings. The action is specific but could be more precise about how 'display' differs from just reading the file.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'image-info' or 'list-images'. It mentions the return format (base64 data for Claude rendering), which hints at usage for visualization, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully indicates this is a read-only operation that extracts metadata rather than displaying the image, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions (e.g., invalid file paths, unsupported formats), performance characteristics, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place - 'Get detailed information' establishes the action, 'about an image file' specifies the resource, and 'without loading the full image data' provides crucial differentiation. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It clearly states what the tool does and its key constraint, but doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes in the return value or address potential behavioral aspects like error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'imagePath' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which explains path format and home directory support). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high and no parameter details are in the description.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about an image file'), with the important constraint 'without loading the full image data' that distinguishes it from potential siblings like 'display-image' which likely shows the image. It goes beyond just restating the name 'image-info' by explaining what kind of information is retrieved and how.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('without loading the full image data'), suggesting it's for metadata extraction rather than visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'display-image' or 'list-images' from the sibling list, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'find and list' but doesn't specify what constitutes an 'image file' (e.g., file extensions), how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any limitations (e.g., permissions, rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'image files' include, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed for effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('searchPath' and 'recursive') in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('find and list') and resource ('image files in a directory'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'display-image' or 'image-info', which might handle individual images differently.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'display-image' or 'image-info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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