Krita Scale Image

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 discloses resampling strategy and resolution handling, but it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether it affects all layers, or how it interacts with canvas size. It also does not state prerequisites like an open document. This is partial but not severely deficient.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, front-loading the core action. Every part serves a purpose: the action, the target, the resampling options, and the resolution note. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description covers the essential scaling action but omits important context: whether it modifies the existing image or creates a new one, effects on layers, undo behavior, or any constraints. It is adequate for a basic scale operation but not fully complete for safe usage without additional knowledge.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the strategy options and the xres/yres behavior (0 keeps current resolution), adding meaning beyond parameter names. However, width and height are left self-explanatory, and xres/yres are not defined as resolution/DPI. It adds value but does not fully document all parameters.

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 scales the whole image to new pixel dimensions, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling krita_resize_image, but the mention of resampling strategy and resolution parameters adds specificity. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clear context: scale the whole image to new dimensions. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives like krita_resize_image, but the purpose is unambiguous. No exclusions or when-not guidance is given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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