Check Vision Helper Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds useful details: it reports the API key status (masked), model selection, and limits, giving insight into the output and behavior beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe the return format, but the key masking and reporting specifics add transparency.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It provides essential information without unnecessary elaboration, and the key details (what it reports, masking) are front-loaded. Every word contributes to the tool's clarity.

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 description covers purpose, usage trigger, and key output details (reports, masks key, lists models/limits). It doesn't describe the exact return format, but for a simple config check, this is likely sufficient. The tool is well-contextualized within the sibling set.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-related information, but none is needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given no parameters exist.

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 specific verb 'Diagnose' and clearly identifies the resource as 'vision analysis configuration problems'. It unambiguously states the tool's purpose and differentiates it from the sibling tools through its action and scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Run this when analysis fails with a missing-key or configuration error.' This provides clear usage context and indicates the tool is for troubleshooting, even without referencing alternatives.

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