image_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, how it handles missing paths, or whether it can fail. It names the output attributes but not the return structure or side effects. While reading a local image metadata is implied, the description does not confirm safety or error behavior.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and immediately lists the returned fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is an excellent example of economical, well-structured prose.

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 tool has one simple parameter and no output schema, so the description must compensate for missing return structure. It names the metadata fields but does not state the output format (e.g., JSON object, plain text). Given the tool's simplicity and clear purpose, the description is mostly adequate but leaves a small gap about the return shape and potential errors.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (image_path with 'Local path to the image'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter-level details, such as accepted formats, absolute vs relative paths, or validation rules. Under the high-coverage baseline of 3, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get an image's') and enumerates exactly what is returned (dimensions, format, byte size, MIME type, SHA-256). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_image or resize_image, which modify images. It also differentiates from broader probes like probe_media by focusing on images specifically.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as probe_media or checksum_file, both of which could partially overlap. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context for when image_info is preferred. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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