crop_to_aspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the 'keeping maximum area' behavior and explains the ratio meaning, which is useful. However, it does not mention important behaviors like default anchoring, quality handling, or whether the operation modifies the input image.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence adds value. The ratio examples are practical and directly aid correct invocation.

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 no annotations, 6 parameters, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify optional parameters or provide enough context to confidently invoke the tool beyond the basic ratio and paths.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the ratio parameter with examples, but provides no additional semantics for anchor, backend, quality, input_path, or output_path. This leaves several parameters underdocumented.

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 crops to a target aspect ratio while keeping maximum area, with concrete ratio examples. It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like crop_image or crop_square.

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 provides common ratio values but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as crop_image, crop_square, or fit_to_spec. There are no exclusions or explicit usage scenarios.

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