vision.inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses security gating ('access is restricted by the configured allow/deny roots'), mode auto-selection behavior, and rigor levels including an independent verifier for 'critical' and a fallback route for 'cheap'. This is substantial behavioral context, though it stops short of describing the exact output format or failure handling, which would push it to 5.

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 well-organized: a clear intro, a usage guideline sentence, and a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, since there is no output schema, it would be beneficial to describe the return format ('compact visual evidence') in more detail or include examples. This gap prevents a perfect completeness score, but the overall context is strong.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Each parameter is explained with meaningful detail: paths must be absolute and at most four, query should be exact and exclude unrelated context, mode auto selects compare for two images, and rigor explains the backend/verifier/fallback behavior. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 function: 'Inspect local images and return compact, security-gated visual evidence.' It specifies the resource (local images) and the action (inspect), and differentiates when to use it versus alternatives by listing conditions like 'correctness depends on visible pixels...' This is a specific, concise purpose statement.

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 says 'Use this only when correctness depends on visible pixels, image-only text, layout, charts, diagrams, or visual before/after comparison. Prefer source text or structured data when those are sufficient.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively distinguishing it from other tools that might handle text or structured data.

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