macos_image_resize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that maxSize 'maintains aspect ratio,' it doesn't clarify what happens when both width and height are specified (does it stretch or maintain ratio?), what image formats are supported, whether the operation overwrites existing files, or what happens on errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 image manipulation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when multiple dimension parameters conflict, what image formats are supported, whether the operation is destructive to the original file, or what the output looks like. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation elsewhere, the description should provide more complete context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the three dimension parameters (width, height, maxSize) and noting that maxSize maintains aspect ratio, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Resize an image') and specifies the key parameters (width, height, maxSize) that control the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'macos_image_convert' by focusing specifically on resizing rather than format conversion, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'macos_image_convert' for format changes or other image manipulation tools. It mentions parameter options but doesn't explain trade-offs between width/height versus maxSize, or when one approach might be preferred over another.

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