filter_by_vibe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool uses color and texture features and returns a list with confidence scores, but it does not cover error handling, permissions, or whether it modifies data. The explanation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, an organized Args section with bullet points for vibe values, and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no information is redundant or wasted.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and output. However, it lacks details on edge cases like empty results or performance, which would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains folder_path as 'Folder to search' and provides a detailed enumeration of valid vibe values with descriptions. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though folder_path could benefit from more context (e.g., path format).

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 filters images by visual 'vibe' categories using color and texture features. It provides a specific verb (filter) and resource (images), and the list of categories distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze or compare images in other ways.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly compare it to siblings like sort_by_color or get_dominant_colors. It implies usage (e.g., filtering by specific categories) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, which is a gap given the numerous sibling tools.

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