can_send_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It communicates that this is a read-only capability check (does not mutate state), which is useful, but it does not disclose what the response looks like or whether network/auth checks are involved. For a zero-parameter check, the description is adequate but minimal.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately brief for a tool with no parameters. It could arguably be more informative, but there is no wasted content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the presence of a similar sibling, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks the output format or any conditions under which the answer might be false, which could be inferred from the name but would benefit from explicit disclosure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is effectively trivially covered. The description adds meaning by explaining the operation's intent, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to call it. A baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters require additional semantics.

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 clear action ('Check if can send image') and resource, so the purpose is somewhat specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'can_send_record', which likely performs a similar check for a different resource type. An agent might confuse the two without additional context.

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 this is a capability check before sending an image, but it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical usage context. With many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would help.

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