resize_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a new file is written next to the original, implying the source is not overwritten. However, it omits overwrite behavior if the target exists, error handling, permissions, return value, and whether aspect ratio is preserved.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and has no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the gaps captured under other dimensions.

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 four-parameter image-processing tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers the core action and output location but leaves parameter meanings, format options, and behavioral details undocumented.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (file, width, height, format). It does not explain the format enum or default, nor how width and height interact. This leaves the agent entirely dependent on undocumented schema fields.

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 and resource: writing a resized copy of an image. It also clarifies the output location ('next to the original'), which is useful. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as preview_image, but the core operation is clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_image or trim_media. The description implies usage but offers no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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