process_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that images are sent together in one request and that the tool is for local images, but it fails to disclose important traits such as file size limits, supported formats, error handling (e.g., invalid paths), or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a general-purpose vision tool.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the main purpose from the list of use cases. No wasted words, but the list could be more organized.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers common use cases and the fact that images are sent together. However, it lacks details about return values, error scenarios, and file requirements. For a general-purpose tool, this is adequate but not 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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists use cases but does not provide specific guidance on how to craft prompts or handle image paths. Given high schema coverage, baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool is a general-purpose vision tool for one or more local images, listing specific use cases like OCR, extraction, description, and reasoning. Despite the generic verb 'process', the description provides clear purpose and scope, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate.

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?

Description explicitly lists when to use the tool (e.g., OCR, extracting information, describing content) but does not provide guidance on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable, resulting in a score of 4.

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