recognize_image

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 error conditions (FileNotFoundError, RuntimeError) and parameter behaviors (image source types, prompt default), adding useful context. It does not mention any destructive behavior, which is appropriate. Could further explain model dependencies or rate limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 existence of an output schema (mentioned), the description covers return values and error cases. It addresses parameter details and usage scenarios thoroughly. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains the 'image' parameter can be local path, URL, or base64, and describes 'prompt' as optional with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 recognizes image content and returns a textual description. It uses specific verbs and resources, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'ocr_image' by focusing on general image understanding rather than just OCR.

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 lists applicable scenarios (screenshot analysis, UI review, etc.), providing implicit usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives. The sibling tool 'ocr_image' is not mentioned, missing an opportunity for clear differentiation.

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