vision_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states return value (text answer), explains optional features (thinking enables reasoning chain, notes provider-specific behavior), and notes model default behavior. However, it could be more transparent about document size limitations or auth/access requirements.

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 efficiently structured with a one-liner purpose, a usage recommendation sentence, and clearly labeled parameter list. Every sentence adds value, there is no redundancy, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (partial burden relief), 5 parameters, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidance, and return value completely. It addresses the tool's complexity well, leaving no obvious gaps for safe 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters: files (URL, path, or data URI), prompt (with example), model (optional override), max_tokens (length cap), and thinking (reasoning chain toggle with provider caveat). This is well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 answers questions about various document formats (pdf/doc/docx etc.) and identifies specific use cases like reports, papers, spec sheets, and extracting data from tables/charts. The scope ('ask questions about documents') is specific and distinct from potential sibling tools (e.g., vision_analyze, vision_ocr).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Great for reports, papers, spec sheets...') and provides example prompts. It also implies when alternatives might be needed by listing sibling tools like vision_ocr and vision_video, but does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives for different tasks.

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