Calculate Print Dpi

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-destructive calculation ('calculate', 'recommend'), but never confirms it is read-only, whether it mutates anything, or what thresholds define the 8K/16K recommendation. An output schema is present, which reduces the need to describe return values.

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 sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the secondary recommendation clause attached. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple three-parameter computation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential operation and its advisory output. The only gap is that the 8K/16K recommendation logic is stated without any hint of the DPI thresholds that drive it.

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%, with each parameter documented including a concrete 24x36 example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the framing that width/height represent a desired physical print size, which the schema already conveys.

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 computed quantity (DPI for a given physical print size) and an additional deliverable (a recommendation on whether to upscale to 8K or 16K). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_image_metadata or upscale_image, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-print feasibility check that would precede upscale_image. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus getting image metadata, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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