analizar_imagen

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful boundaries beyond them: it works on both images and folders, and it deliberately does not evaluate quality. It stops short of describing output structure or failure modes, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 tool's identity is stated first, followed by the usage rule, the exclusion, and a copy-pasteable example — an effective order with no filler. The opening noun phrase is slightly fragmented, and the example uses a field name the agent must map back to the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but the parenthetical lists the returned attributes, which largely substitutes for one. With a single required parameter and rich annotations, nothing critical is missing, though it does not mention what a folder result looks like or how errors (bad path, non-image) surface.

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?

With only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries full meaning, so the baseline is a 4. The description adds a concrete example value showing an expanded tilde path to an image file, reinforcing that folders are also acceptable.

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 set of noun details it returns (format, dimensions, size, transparency, metadata, EXIF orientation) and also covers the folder-listing case, so the agent knows exactly what resource is inspected. It explicitly differentiates itself from the quality-measuring sibling.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering rule ('Use it first if you don't know what it is') and names the alternative for a different job ('It doesn't measure quality: for that, medir_calidad'). The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out.

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