compress_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about whether the original file is overwritten, where the compressed output goes, acceptable input formats, size limits, or the cost/latency of OCR extraction — all material for a mutation-style tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional capability trailing. It is taut in phrasing, though arguably too brief for a four-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate and does not. Core behaviors (output location, overwrite semantics, parameter meaning) remain unspecified for a tool the agent must configure.

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%, so all four parameters (image_path, quality, max_dimension, extract_text) rely on the description for meaning. It only loosely maps to extract_text ('optional OCR text extraction') and gives no guidance on quality or max_dimension semantics, defaults, or units.

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 and resource ('Compress an image') plus the intended consumer ('for vision model input') and the optional secondary capability ('OCR text extraction'). The resource is distinct from siblings like compress_shell, though the description never explicitly routes against 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 purpose hints at when the tool is relevant (preparing images for a vision model), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to skip OCR or how this relates to ingest_diagram or compress_shell.

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