photo_liveness_detect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It enumerates return values ('risk level plus attack tag') and lists various attack types it covers (screen replay, print attack, synthetic face, etc.), giving good insight into tool behavior. However, it could be improved by mentioning file format/size limits or processing mode (sync/async).

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and providing return values and use cases in the second. There is no extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return values, attack types, and appropriate use cases. It is missing potential limitations like file size or format constraints, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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%, with the input schema already detailing the 'file' parameter's valid inputs. The tool description does not add significant new semantic information about the parameter, meeting the baseline expectation. No additional clarity needed.

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 purpose: detect if a face photo is genuine or spoofed/AI-forged. It specifies the resource (face photo) and action (detect liveness), and distinguishes itself from siblings like video_liveness_detect and face_compare.

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 provides explicit usage contexts ('Best for lightweight anti-fraud before account opening, loan application, payment-risk step-up, or AI-agent human gate'), giving clear guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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