analyze_image

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

无注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。仅提到'基于视觉模型'暗示外部调用，但未说明网络依赖、图片大小限制、失败处理或隐私影响等关键行为。描述只覆盖输入格式，行为细节缺失。

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?

描述采用分节结构（触发条件+参数解释），信息密集且无冗余。中文表述流畅，但长度稍长，每句均有价值，整体简洁。

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?

工具中等复杂，有输出schema故无需描述返回值。描述覆盖了参数和触发场景，但未提及错误处理或资源限制等潜在注意事项，在有无注解情况下仍可更完整。

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覆盖率为0%，描述完全弥补了参数含义：详细列出images的四种合法格式（路径、URL、data URI、纯base64），解释prompt用途，并明确detail为采样精细度且枚举值low/high/auto。超越schema预期。

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?

描述明确说明工具是'分析图片内容并回答你的问题'，使用具体动词和资源。但未明确区分与兄弟工具describe_image、extract_text_from_image的边界，可能混淆，因此扣一分。

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?

描述提供了明确的触发条件（用户要求看图片/描述图片等或出现图片路径/URL/base64），并指示'主动调用'。但未说明何时不使用（如仅需纯描述时是否应选describe_image），不过整体指引清晰。

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