vision.explain_region

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 only states what the tool explains but gives no insight into side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation. This is insufficient for a tool with potential complexity.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it compromises informativeness. It front-loads the main action but omits critical details. For a tool with 5 parameters, it could be slightly longer to cover key points without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema (content unknown), the description lacks details about output format, error handling, and prerequisites. It is incomplete for a tool with multiple required parameters and no behavioral hints from annotations.

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%, yet the description offers no parameter-specific information. It mentions 'at an observed pixel' implying x,y coordinates but does not explain project_path, capture_id, or graph_type. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema names.

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 'explain' and the resource 'region', and specifies it deals with evidence, authority, and uncertainty at a pixel. It differentiates from siblings like vision.observe or vision.query by focusing on explanation of evidence, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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