ai_vision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions sovereignty and cost but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid URLs, authentication requirements (beyond optional L402 params), or output format. This is insufficient for a tool that may involve payment and remote API calls.

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 a single sentence plus cost, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. It front-loads the purpose and cost. However, it could be more informative without losing brevity, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Despite the tool's relative simplicity, the description omits crucial context such as how to use the L402 authentication parameters (preimage/macaroon), expected output format, and error handling. Given no output schema, the description should provide more guidance on return values or behavior.

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 75% (only image_url lacks description in schema). The description mentions 'image URL' which adds context for the required parameter. However, it does not elaborate on any parameters, and the schema already describes question, preimage, and macaroon adequately. No extra value beyond the schema is provided.

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 it's a Vision QA tool over an image URL using Qwen3-VL, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_ocr (text extraction) or ai_classify. The verb 'QA' implies answering questions, and the resource is an image URL. However, it does not explicitly state that the user can ask questions about the image, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ai_ocr for text extraction, ai_classify for classification). The cost mention (40 sats) might influence usage but does not constitute clear when/when-not guidance. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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