分析图片

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by noting support for streaming progress, remote image URLs, and multiple configurable processing modes. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what the tool does without contradicting the annotations.

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 succinct sentences. The first states the core function and input types; the second summarizes user-controlled options and capabilities. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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?

With a rich schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, input sources, and capabilities (OCR, summarize, locate, streaming). Minor omissions like error handling or network prerequisites are not critical given the structured metadata.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all six parameters. The description mentions intent, processing mode, and reasoning level, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it falls at the baseline.

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 analyzes images from local paths, file URLs, or HTTP(S) URLs, and lists distinct capabilities like OCR, summarization, and subject localization. This differentiates it from sibling tools analyze_video and list_vision_models.

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 clear context on the tool's scope (image analysis from various sources) and mentions the main intents (OCR, summarize, locate). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using analyze_video for videos, so it stops short of a full 5.

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