image_decide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the H2O vision-enabled prerequisite and the caveat that probabilities are model scores rather than verified accuracy, which is material for how an agent reports results. It does not describe what the response payload actually contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then inputs, then the gating prerequisite, then the output caveat. No repetition of schema or annotation content and nothing that could be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only gestures at this via the probability caveat. It never says what a choice result looks like (per-option scores vs a winning id) or how a score-mode result is ordered, which an agent needs to interpret the call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'absolute image path' adds a constraint the schema's plain string type does not convey, and the three question modes map onto the oneOf variants. But the internal shape of choice options (id/label) and ordered levels is left entirely to the schema, and the relationship between path/context and each mode is unstated.

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?

States a concrete verb (ask) and resource (H2O), and enumerates the three supported question modes (boolean, choice, ordered-score), which lets an agent distinguish it from the extraction/description siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming image_ocr or image_describe as the alternatives, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Supply an absolute image path, text context, or both' gives input-combination guidance, and the vision-enabled prerequisite is a real gating condition. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over image_describe or image_ocr, nor any when-not condition, so the agent must infer the routing.

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