extract_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns a list with image URLs, alt text, and metadata, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits details about potential errors, rate limits, handling of dynamic content, or what 'all images' means in edge cases. This is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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 consists of two concise sentences that directly state the action and the return value. There is no redundant or filler text, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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 required parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete enough picture: it states what it does and what it returns. It lacks additional context about limitations or prerequisites, but given the simplicity, this is sufficient. A score of 4 reflects a well-rounded description for the tool's complexity.

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 fully describes the single parameter (url) with 100% coverage, stating 'The URL of the web page to extract images from'. The description's phrase 'from a web page' adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Extract' with the resource 'all images from a web page', which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_links by focusing specifically on images rather than links. The mention of return contents (URLs, alt text, metadata) further clarifies the purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when images from a web page are needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary criteria. Since the context is straightforward and distinguishes from siblings through the tool name and description, it deserves a score above 'no guidance' but not the full 5 because it lacks explicit 'when not to use' language.

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