aspect_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by explaining the two modes of operation, but it does not mention output format, error handling, or what happens if conflicting parameters (e.g., both width and height and ratio) are provided. It gives some useful context but leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 that efficiently communicates both operations with examples. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Compute' and contains no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, so the description must clarify input patterns and return values. It fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., a reduced ratio string or a scaled number), and does not explain how the three parameters interact, leaving ambiguity for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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 descriptions cover only 'ratio' (33%), so the description adds meaning by clarifying that width and height are dimensions for computation or scaling, and giving examples of ratio formats. However, it does not specify input combinations or constraints (e.g., are width and height both required for compute mode?), leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 computes reduced aspect ratios from width and height or scales a dimension to a target ratio, using specific verbs 'compute' and 'scale'. It distinguishes itself from sibling utility tools by focusing on aspect ratio operations, which no other sibling addresses.

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 presents two distinct use cases separated by 'OR': computing a ratio from width/height, and scaling a width/height to a given ratio. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives since no sibling tool performs similar functions.

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