analyze_logo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool analyzes logo information and supports an onlyBestUrl parameter to return only the best logo's URL, but it lacks details on what 'best' means, how analysis is performed, potential rate limits, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose in the first part and adding parameter-specific information in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential details without unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of analyzing logos (which may involve image processing), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'quality' means, how results are returned, or any limitations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'onlyBestUrl' parameter by explaining it returns only the best logo's URL, but it doesn't clarify the 'url' parameter's purpose or format. With 2 parameters and partial coverage in the description, this meets the baseline for minimal adequacy but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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: '分析Logo的基本信息（尺寸、格式、质量等）' (analyze logo's basic information including dimensions, format, quality, etc.). It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'logo' with concrete attributes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_best_logo_url' beyond mentioning the onlyBestUrl parameter.

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 implies usage through the mention of 'onlyBestUrl参数只返回最佳Logo的URL' (onlyBestUrl parameter returns only the best logo's URL), suggesting this tool can be used for detailed analysis or just to get the best URL. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_best_logo_url' or any other alternatives, leaving the distinction unclear.

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