aspect_ratio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that it calculates an aspect ratio and does not describe the return format (e.g., decimal vs. simplified ratio), edge cases such as zero height, or any other behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool and immediately conveys the essential purpose.

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 calculator with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate to invoke the tool. However, it omits the return value format, which would be useful since no output schema exists, leaving a clear gap in completeness.

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 descriptions fully cover both parameters ('Width in pixels.' and 'Height in pixels.'), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that width and height are the inputs without adding any semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('aspect ratio') with the inputs ('given width and height'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as ratio_simplify or proportion_solve.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no context or exclusions are provided. This matches the 'no guidance' level.

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