Resize image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral details: default fit=inside preserves aspect ratio, enlargement is disabled unless enlarge=true, and Lanczos3 resampling is used. It does not mention side effects like file writing, but core resizing behavior is well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then key constraints and algorithm detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main resizing behavior but omits details like format defaults, input format expectations, and output path behavior beyond what the schema already says. Adequate for a common resize task, but with clear gaps.

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 meaning for parameters that the schema does not describe, such as width, height, percent, fit, and enlarge. However, schema coverage is only 36%, and the description leaves important parameters like input and format to be inferred, so compensation is partial.

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: resizing an image by width, height, or percent, and it adds a key behavior (aspect-ratio preservation). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crop_image or convert_image, but the verb and scope are 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?

The intended use case is implied: use this when you need to resize an image. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as convert_image, compress_image, or crop_image, and no exclusions are stated.

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