select_image_regions_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the non-blocking return immediately after GUI launch, browser-based GUI, automatic loading of first 4 images, and the need to retrieve results later. This is strong transparency, though it doesn't cover error cases or behavior with invalid image paths.

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, with each sentence serving a purpose: main action, supported formats, default behavior, non-blocking return, and result retrieval. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides a complete workflow: launching the GUI, supported inputs, default loading, non-blocking behavior, and the required follow-up step. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 only defines image_path as an optional string without additional description. The description adds that omitting image_path loads the first 4 images from the image directory, implying it expects a file path, but it doesn't explicitly explain what image_path accepts or how it relates to supported formats (images vs PDFs), leaving some ambiguity.

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 that the tool opens a GUI for interactive selection of image regions, supported formats, and default behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the companion tool get_selection_result_tool for retrieving results.

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 explicitly states the default behavior when image_path is omitted and instructs that the result must be fetched via get_selection_result_tool, defining a clear workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly describe when not to use the tool or contrast it with alternatives beyond the follow-up tool.

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