smart_crop_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Return' URLs, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or what happens if the image does not exist. Without annotations or further detail, the behavioral expectations are largely unstated.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification, so while it is efficient, it could use a second sentence to add crucial context without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain what the returned URLs look like, how projectName and dimensions are used, or how it differs from related tools. Considerable inference is required.

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 coverage is only 25%, with only 'name' described as 'Stored extension-less image name'. The description adds the phrase 'at specified dimensions' but does not explain how width and height are interpreted, or what projectName refers to. It fails to compensate for the low 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 tool's function: 'Return crop variant URLs for a given image at specified dimensions.' It uses the verb 'Return' and specifies the resource (crop variant URLs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_lcp or migrate_assets. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from the closely related generate_responsive_tag, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for images requiring crop variants at specific dimensions, but does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions. Sibling tool names (e.g., generate_responsive_tag) suggest potential overlap, but the description fails to address this distinction.

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