Attach Evidence Image

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the inline-base64 transport detail and the alternative's rationale, but says nothing about what happens on repeat attaches (relevant given idempotentHint=false), size limits, or permissions on the proposal.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the routing alternative. The final sentence restates the schema enum verbatim, so it earns slightly less than a perfect score, but nothing is padded.

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?

A mutation tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage needs more than transport hints. Missing are the semantics of step/label/proposal_id, behavior on duplicate attaches, and any constraint on image size or format beyond 'base64', leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains image_base64 (inline base64 rather than a path) and restates the kind enum, but says nothing about step, label, or proposal_id — the meaning of step (index? existing step reference?) and what label is used for are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach an evidence image to a proposal) and immediately names the sibling it is not — attach_evidence_file — with the condition that separates them. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool when the image is supplied inline, use attach_evidence_file when the screenshot already exists as a file on this machine so bytes never pass through model context. No exclusions or prerequisites are given for the kind values or for when attaching evidence is appropriate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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