Process local images with QuokkaPix

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it opens Chromium, uses browser file input, processes locally, downloads output, and writes a result file. It clarifies that source images are not sent to a remote API. It also covers free vs paid constraints. This is comprehensive and leaves little ambiguity about the tool's side effects and requirements.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, the second explains the workflow, and the third adds important constraints (local-only, free/paid). It is front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.

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 complexity (10 params, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the high-level flow, local constraints, and payment model. It does not detail output format or error handling, but the presence of sibling tools like validate_result_manifest suggests output details are available elsewhere. This is nearly complete but could mention potential failure scenarios.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it instead focuses on overall workflow. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: processing local image files through QuokkaPix using a recipeId or custom recipe. It details the workflow (opens Chromium, uploads, processes, downloads, writes result.json) and explicitly states what it does not do (images stay local, not sent to API). This provides a specific verb-resource combo that distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipe or validate_recipe.

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 guidance on when to use unlockToken (for larger paid runs beyond 5 free files) and mentions using official recipeId from list_recipes or a custom recipe. It implies alternatives like get_recipe for obtaining recipeIds, but does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare with process_with_settings. Still, the context is clear enough for most use cases.

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