resize_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains aspect-ratio preservation and that both dimensions with preserve_aspect fits the image inside the box rather than distorting it. However, it says nothing about defaults, behavior when no sizing parameter is provided, backend handling, quality interpretation, or whether output files are overwritten.

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 tight and front-loaded, with 'Resize an image' first and only the most decision-relevant parameter guidance following. Every sentence earns its place and there is minimal fluff.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core sizing behavior well but leaves gaps around backend, quality, validation, and edge cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is still only moderately complete for correct invocation.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It adds meaning for width, height, max_edge, and preserve_aspect, and the required input/output paths are reasonably self-explanatory from their names. But backend and quality receive no explanation, leaving two parameters underspecified.

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 opening line 'Resize an image' states a specific verb and resource, and the parameter combinations (width, height, max_edge, preserve_aspect) make the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like crop_image or adjust_image, but 'resize' is distinct enough on its own.

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 explains how to use the tool's sizing modes ('Give width, height, both, or max_edge') and the behavior of preserve_aspect, which is operational guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as crop_to_aspect, fit_to_spec, or process_image.

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