picdefense_detect_watermark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the tool consumes account credits, limits detection to visible watermarks, and lists return values (detection flag, confidence score, source). However, it omits details about error handling, edge cases, or any limitations beyond "visible," leaving some operational transparency gaps.

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 two sentences, purpose first, then output and cost. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness and clear front-loading.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the output fields and cost. It could improve by hinting at when to use it (e.g., checking credits via get_credits first), but the essential practical details are present. The omission of error/edge-case behavior is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully describes the only parameter (url) with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Detect a visible stock/photographer watermark in an image." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like picdefense_detect_logo or picdefense_detect_face by the unique task of watermark detection.

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 context by specifying the watermark type (visible stock/photographer) and notes that it consumes account credits, implying a cost consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as detect_logo or provide exclusions, so the guidance is partially implied but not fully explicit.

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