Analyze image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It specifies input formats but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an answer to the prompt, a description, or analysis results) or any side effects, privacy implications, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool that sends image data to an external service.

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, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the purpose and then list use cases. It avoids unnecessary repetition and is well-structured, with the action and input types front-loaded.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining what the tool returns. It fails to mention the prompt parameter or that users can ask specific questions about the image, making the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it. The description covers the input side well but leaves the output side undefined.

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 already covers both parameters (source and prompt) with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context about use cases but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the individual parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('an image'), and enumerates concrete use cases (screenshots, UI, OCR, diagrams, photos, visual debugging). This distinguishes it from its sibling analyze_video, which focuses on video.

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 context by listing supported input types (local path, HTTP(S) URL, base64 data URI) and concrete scenarios where the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the alternative analyze_video for video content, though this is implied by the sibling name.

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