show_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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions a maximum size constraint ('The maximum size is 1048578') and input types, but lacks critical details such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or mutative. For a tool that processes images, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement, key constraints, and a formatted Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, such as specifying input types and output. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the thumbnail creation first, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but misses details like return format (beyond 'Image'), error cases, or performance implications. For a tool without annotations or output schema, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully helpful.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'image_path' can be a URL or local file path, clarifies 'width' and 'height' as output dimensions in pixels, and notes defaults implicitly via the schema. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid ranges for dimensions or file formats, slightly limiting its utility.

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: 'Create a thumbnail of the image and return it.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('thumbnail of the image'), and outcome ('return it'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'image_variation' or 'text_to_image', which might also involve image processing, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions support for URLs or local file paths, but offers no advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'image_variation' or 'inpainting'. There's no context on prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with little direction.

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