analyze_image

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

The description discloses the output structure (description + visual_primitives with coordinates and labels), which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations available, it does not cover input requirements, limitations, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity about expected 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential output information without any redundancy. It is perfectly concise for the purpose.

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?

Despite the concise output summary, the description lacks usage context, input semantics, and any detail about the visual_primitives structure. With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and falls short of being complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 already describes the 'format' and 'question' parameters, but the required 'image' parameter lacks any description, and the tool description doesn't compensate. With 67% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the missing image semantics are a noticeable 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 states the tool performs structured analysis and returns description plus visual_primitives with box/point coordinates and labels. This clearly identifies the tool's output and distinguishes it from siblings like describe_image or ocr_image, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or sibling comparisons.

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