视觉问答

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds little beyond restating the input/output flow and the max_dimension scaling behavior (which is also in the schema), and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose and use case, but it duplicates the parameter list and return value that are already covered by the schema and output schema. Those duplicated sentences do not earn their place, reducing overall conciseness.

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?

Combined with the fully descriptive schema and available annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It adds useful application context, and the output schema handles return-value details. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameter semantics with detailed descriptions for images, question, and max_dimension. The description's parameter list merely repeats the schema information without adding new meaning, so it provides no extra value beyond the structured 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 identifies the operation as visual question answering ('对图片进行视觉问答') with the specific inputs images and question. It also provides an application context (checking Web/PPT pages), which implicitly distinguishes it from generic describe or OCR vision tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: '适用于检查Web页面、PPT页面等是否符合特定要求或样式', indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios, so it lacks complete exclusion guidance.

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