get_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get image information' without explaining what is returned, whether the file must exist, or if there are any side effects. For a simple read tool this is less severe, but the lack of any detail about the return value or error behavior is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the verb but omits any substantiating detail. While brevity is positive, the sentence does not earn its place because it adds little beyond the tool name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is the only source of context. It fails to clarify what 'image information' includes, what the return format is, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'ocr_image'. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior or output from this description.

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 describes the single parameter 'file' as 'Image file path', which is clear. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning about the parameter. It does not specify expected format (e.g., absolute path vs relative) or constraints, but the schema already provides the essential semantic.

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 'Get image information' uses a specific verb and resource, but 'information' is vague – it does not specify whether this means metadata (dimensions, format, size) or something else. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'ocr_image', which also processes an image file, so an agent could confuse the two.

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 like 'ocr_image' or other getters. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent is left to infer that this tool is for basic image metadata, but the description does not say so.

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