locate_object

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

The description adds one key behavioral trait: '找不到会返回 count=0' (returns count=0 if not found), which is useful and goes beyond the schema. It also mentions the coordinates are 'primitives' for LLM output. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only/destructive, and with no annotations, the burden is higher.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key behavioral detail (count=0). It is concise with no wasted words, and the structure is clean.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., shape of primitives, how count is included), doesn't clarify when to use this tool over many siblings, and doesn't explain the coords/refine options sufficiently. The description is too minimal for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 75% and the description adds little parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '坐标 primitives' which loosely relates to the coords parameter, but does not explain the refine or target parameters or how they affect behavior. The schema descriptions for coords and refine are already present, so the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 locates a target object in an image and returns coordinate primitives, with a specific verb-resource pairing ('locate object in image'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ui_locate or cv_locate, which also locate objects, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for object localization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when another locator (e.g., ui_locate, som_locate) would be more appropriate.

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