annotate_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the key behavior: save the annotated image and return the path. However, it does not mention whether the original image is modified, how coordinates are validated, or possible side effects like file overwriting. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that states the action and the result. It is front-loaded with the core function ('在图片上画矩形框/圆点/标签') and ends with the output behavior ('保存标注图并返回路径'). No filler or redundant information.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the essential output (returns path) and mentions the saving behavior. However, it lacks broader context such as when to use the tool, coordinate system handling, or limitations. The schema covers parameter details, but the description alone is thin for a tool of this complexity.

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 provides descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. It only mentions the types of annotations (boxes/dots/labels) which aligns with the 'items' parameter but adds no new detail.

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: drawing rectangles/dots/labels on an image, saving the annotated image, and returning the path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crop_image, ocr_image, and analyze_image, which have different purposes. The verb '画' (draw) and resource '图片' (image) are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The usage is implied from the description: use this tool when you need to add visual markers to an image. However, no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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