singularis_blur

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the return value (blurred array or written path), adds a mass-conservation check, and warns that cost scales with pixels * sigma. It does not state whether writing to out_path overwrites existing files or what formats are writable.

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?

Front-loads the operation and resource, then packs inputs, return, and cost into short clauses with no filler. The keyword-list style ('smoothing, denoising, scale-space, preprocessing') is slightly loose but compact and informative.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return formatting, yet it still names the return. Given no annotations, it covers safety-adjacent behavior, cost, and all four parameters adequately; only edge cases like overwrite semantics and supported output formats are missing.

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: it clarifies that 'image' is an inline array while 'path' is a file reference, that 'sigma' is in pixels, and that 'out_path' is optional and only for image files. The either-or relationship between path and image is captured, though the sigma default of 1 is left to the schema.

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 specific operation (Gaussian blur) on a specific resource (2D array or .npy/.png/.jpg image) with the controlling parameter (sigma). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like singularis_fft, singularis_gemm, and singularis_compress.

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?

Gives concrete use-case context ('smoothing, denoising, scale-space, preprocessing'), which tells the agent what class of problem this solves. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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