get_image_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get', 'check') and reveals that including the thumbnail returns an inline image, but it does not disclose failure modes, required permissions, or whether the file must already exist. Some behavioral context is given but incomplete.

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 three concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and supported formats. The parameter list is appended without redundancy. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (dimensions, format, file size, bit depth, optional thumbnail) and specifies supported file types. It does not detail error handling or return structure, but for a read-only info tool, it is mostly 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%, and the description only lists parameter names at the end. It provides semantic meaning only for include_thumbnail (explaining it returns an inline thumbnail), but file_path and thumbnail_max_width are left unexplained beyond their names. This is minimal additional value over the 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 states the tool retrieves technical information (dimensions, format, file size, bit depth) from processed image files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_exif or get_histogram by the specific attributes listed. It does not explicitly compare to siblings but the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check dimensions, format, file size, and bit depth', providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for other types of information, lacking exclusions.

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