load_image_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('get information') and lists the return fields, but does not disclose whether the file is read from disk, what happens on missing/unreadable files, supported formats, or that it does not modify the file. The read-only nature is only inferred from the word 'information.'

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The primary purpose appears in the first sentence. The Args/Returns structure is clear and adds no repetition or fluff. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states the parameter and the high-level return type. Minor gaps include error handling and supported formats, but these are not critical for a metadata loader and are partially covered by the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'image_path' as 'Path to image file,' which adds meaning beyond the raw string type in the schema. Though not detailed (e.g., relative vs absolute, format support), it provides the essential meaning for the only parameter.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get information about an image file.' It specifies the output is a dictionary with metadata (shape, dtype, channels, dimensions). It is distinct enough from the sibling tools, which are all processing/segmentation tools, but the description does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention conditions like needing metadata before segmentation, nor does it exclude scenarios where other loaders might be preferred. The description is purely functional with no contextual guidance.

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