run_hdrmt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explains mode effects but does not state whether the view is modified in place, whether a new view is created, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a processing tool.

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?

Two short sentences, both informative, with the main action first and mode semantics second. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin for a six-parameter processing tool. The schema covers parameters and the description covers the algorithm and mode intent, but side effects and result behavior are left unspecified, so it is only minimally 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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a little semantic context by connecting inverted mode to detail enhancement and normal mode to dynamic-range compression, but does not go beyond that baseline.

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 names a specific operation, HDRMultiscaleTransform, and its target, a view. It also distinguishes the two modes (inverted vs normal), so an agent can identify the tool's role among many image-processing siblings.

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 mode sentence gives some selection guidance (use inverted for detail enhancement, normal for dynamic-range compression), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the algorithm name.

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