read_image_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it only validates (read-only) and does not call MiMo API, indicating it's a lightweight, non-invasive operation. It also states the return type (validation result and MIME type), but omits potential error behavior or permissions.

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 highly concise and well-structured. It begins with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides organized Args and Returns sections. Every part earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, input format, and return concept. Since an output schema exists, detailed return fields are not required in the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section fully explains the 'image' parameter, enumerating accepted formats: local path, http(s):// URL, file://, or data:...;base64,... This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: to validate whether an image input can be recognized and return format information, explicitly noting it does not call the MiMo API. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_image and analyze_images, which likely perform deeper analysis.

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 a clear use case: for troubleshooting image input issues. It implies this is the diagnostic tool to use before attempting more complex operations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it.

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