calculate_aspect_ratio

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the computed capabilities but never states that this is a pure, side-effect-free calculation, nor does it describe the shape of the result (ratio value, alignment result, crop/pad rectangles). For a no-annotation tool this leaves real gaps, even if risk is low.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core operation and appending optional capabilities last. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back (reduced ratio, aligned dimensions, crop rectangle, pad rectangle). It covers what is computed but not the return structure, leaving an agent guessing at result fields.

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 the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps features to parameters (macroblock alignment -> blockSize, crop/pad plans -> targetRatioW/H) but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb ('simplify') and resource ('pixel dimensions') and enumerates three concrete sub-functions: ratio reduction, codec macroblock alignment, and crop/pad planning. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never states that the primary output is the reduced ratio itself.

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 word 'optionally' signals that the crop/letterbox planning is conditional, which implicitly ties it to the targetRatio parameters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus doing the math elsewhere, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions.

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