ideogram_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the input shape ('local file path') and the output category ('text description'), but says nothing about permissions, whether the source file is modified, cost, or how model version changes results. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's image parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 is simple (2 params, 1 required, no output schema), and the description covers action, input, and output type, which is largely sufficient. Minor gaps around model-version tradeoffs and output format remain, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it is 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 100%, so both parameters (image path and describe_model_version enum) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Accepts a local file path' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantics, matching the baseline of 3.

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+resource ('generate a text description of an image') and names the backing endpoint, which clearly separates it from the image-mutation siblings (generate, edit, upscale, reframe). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a caption/description of an existing image rather than a new or edited one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, but the sibling set makes the selection fairly obvious.

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