resize-image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but omits critical details: whether the operation is destructive (overwrites files?), what permissions are needed, supported image formats, error handling, or output location specifics. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Resize image to specified dimensions') earns its place by conveying essential information concisely.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits (destructiveness, auth needs), output details (where files are saved, return values), and usage context. The high parameter count and mutation nature require more comprehensive guidance.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'dimensions' relates to width/height. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how maintainAspectRatio affects dimensions) or constraints (e.g., valid pixel ranges). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('image') with the specific goal of achieving 'specified dimensions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rotate-image' or 'compress-image' by focusing on dimension changes rather than orientation or file size reduction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'convert-image' might also resize).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compress-image' (for size reduction) or 'convert-image' (for format changes with possible resizing). The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., file format support) or exclusions (e.g., when not to resize).

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