Resize Image

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

Annotations include openWorldHint and idempotentHint but do not characterize side effects, source handling, or output behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action; it does not say whether the original is preserved, how source_url/file_base64 are resolved, or what happens when both are provided.

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 with no filler and the main verb/object are front-loaded. It is efficient, though too terse to carry helpful usage or behavioral context.

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 six optional parameters, two possible image source fields, and an output schema, the description leaves critical invocation details unstated. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether one of source_url/file_base64 is required, how width/height/fit interact, or what a minimal valid call looks like.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful definition. The description only reinforces width/height and adds no extra semantics for fit, format, or source selection, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Resize'), a clear resource ('an image'), and the key operation ('to the given width/height'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling conversion/compression tools, but the action is distinct enough from compress_image and convert_file.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus compress_image, convert_file, or images_to_pdf, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Any usage direction is only implicit in the tool name.

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