describe_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool relies on GLM-4V (an external model), implying a call to an AI service. It does not mention potential limitations, privacy implications of sending local images, or side effects. This is adequate but not highly transparent.

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, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without extraneous detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, has no output schema, and no sibling tools. The description covers the core functionality and parameters. While the return format is not explicitly stated, it is implied by 'describe' and 'extract text'. This is complete for the complexity level.

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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value, only hinting that the prompt can direct attention or request text extraction. No additional behavior beyond schema is described.

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's function: using GLM-4V to recognize/describe local image content or extract text. The verb is specific and the resource (local image) is identified. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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 implies the appropriate context: local images, with options for description or text extraction. It does not mention alternatives (none exist) or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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