describe_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions using a multimodal model and outputting text, but fails to disclose details like file size limits, accuracy, latency, or any destructive actions. The description is too vague for a tool with no other behavioral signals.

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 a single sentence in Chinese, which is concise but slightly long. It does not waste words, but the structure is minimal. It earns its place but could be more streamlined while adding missing details.

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 complexity of 7 parameters (including anyOf conditions and nested objects) and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or valid input combinations, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters (including nested objects), so the schema already explains parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: using a multimodal model to convert images into detailed text descriptions for understanding by pure text models. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'ask_about_image' and 'extract_image_text' but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The only hint is that output is for pure text models, but no explicit usage instructions.

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