vision_analyze

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 discloses the model used (Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B-Instruct), the default prompt behavior (5-part Chinese report), the key runtime requirement (read from opencode.json qwen provider), and the critical limitation (cannot decode high-density barcodes). This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical barcode limitation. It packs a lot of information into a compact space. Slightly long, but every sentence earns its place.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: model, default prompt, input requirements, and limitations. It doesn't describe the return format, but the default prompt description implies the structure of the output. The barcode limitation is critical context that is well covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the default prompt and model, but the parameters themselves are already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the 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 states a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('an image'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a barcode decoder: 'NOT a barcode decoder — high-density barcode VALUES must be decoded by a real decoder (ZXing/Dynamsoft), the VLM cannot.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like safe_scan and run_qwen.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for image analysis with a VLM, and explicitly says when NOT to use it (for barcode decoding). It doesn't name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the exclusion is strong and actionable.

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