image_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the path constraint (must be under home directory) and lists the types of data returned, but does not mention permissions, supported formats, or error conditions. It's a read-only operation by nature, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 structured with a lead sentence, a bullet-like list of returned metadata, and an Args section. It is appropriately sized and the first sentence front-loads the purpose. A slight reduction in detail would be possible, but it is not bloated.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description covers the parameter, the main behavior, and the path constraint. It lacks details on error cases or supported formats, but for a metadata extraction tool with an output schema, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema only defines 'path' as a string with no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by specifying 'Absolute path to the image file (must be under home directory)', giving both format and a critical constraint. This is full explanatory coverage for the single parameter.

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 uses the verb 'Extract' with a clear object ('full metadata from an image') and enumerates the metadata categories (file info, image properties, EXIF). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ocr_image or extract_text, so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 description implies usage for metadata extraction but does not state when to prefer this over OCR or text extraction. It provides context about what the tool returns but no exclusions or alternative references.

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