Identify empty shelf regions in retail photos, grouped by row with width ratio and severity to locate out-of-stock gaps.
Find empty (out-of-stock) regions on the shelf, grouped by row, each with a width ratio versus the row's mean product width and a severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gaps | Yes | ||
| image | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| annotated | No | ||
| gap_count | Yes | ||
| rows_detected | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or returns an annotated image. The return format (inline or by reference) is only implied via the 'annotate' parameter in the schema, not in the description.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential functionality without unnecessary words. It is concise, easy to parse, and directly to the point.
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?
The description provides the output details but omits the input requirements (like needing an image) and any mention of optional annotations. Given the moderate complexity of a vision-based tool, this missing context could leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke it.
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 description does not mention any parameters (e.g., image input, confidence threshold, annotation flag). Given that the schema description coverage is 0% according to the context, the description fails to compensate by providing parameter context, even though the schema itself includes descriptions.
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: detecting empty (out-of-stock) regions on a shelf, grouped by row, and providing width ratio and severity. This leaves no ambiguity about the core purpose.
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 does not mention when to use this tool compared to its siblings (e.g., count_products, check_planogram). It lacks explicit guidance on selection criteria or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.