gif_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It proactively names the specific output fields (dimensions, frame count, delays, loop count, average FPS), giving the agent concrete expectations. It implies a safe, read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error conditions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the verb, resource, and output fields with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what metadata will be returned, covering the absence of an output schema, while the schema documents the input sufficiently.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema's 'Path to the GIF file'.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'GIF file', listing the exact metadata types returned (dimensions, frame count, delays, loop count, average FPS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gif_frame (likely for extracting a frame) and gif_frames_list (probably for listing frames).

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 implies usage: when you need GIF metadata, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as 'for frame-specific data, use gif_frame'.

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