photoshop_image_resize

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

Annotations are sparse: openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is a 'typed convenience tool' and uses 'the same catalog policy and verification pipeline', which implies it will behave consistently with other tools in the catalog, but does not elaborate on specific side effects. Since destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose much beyond the annotations. The 'verification pipeline' mention implies some validation process, which is useful but vague.

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 very brief, only two sentences, and uses a clear structure: it states what it is, then references shared behavior. It earns a high score for conciseness, but it is perhaps too terse, lacking helpful details. It is front-loaded with the purpose, which is good.

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 that there is an output schema (not shown) and the tool is a convenience wrapper, the description may not need to explain return values. However, for a tool that resizes images, an agent would benefit from knowing how the result is returned (e.g., modified document, new file, etc.) and any side effects. The mention of 'same catalog policy and verification pipeline' suggests consistency with other tools but does not spell out behavior. With 2 parameters, both optional per anyOf, an agent needs to know that at least one must be provided, which is implied by the schema but not in the description. Overall, there are gaps in usage context.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter names 'width' and 'height' are self-explanatory but their semantics (e.g., pixel dimensions, constraints on aspect ratio) are not documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely says it's a convenience tool for 'image.resize'. The anyOf constraint (either width or height required) is in the schema but not explained in the description. Since the schema is minimal and the description doesn't compensate, this is a gap.

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 the tool is a 'convenience tool for image.resize' with 'the same catalog policy and verification pipeline'. This clearly indicates the action (resize an image) and the resource (image dimensions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the generic image.resize operation, which is not named in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly say what 'image.resize' does (resizing an image by specifying width/height), but the schema and tool name make it fairly evident.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'same catalog policy and verification pipeline' which hints at a shared context with other Photoshop tools, but does not specify when to prefer this over other tools like 'photoshop_command_execute' or 'photoshop_document_export'. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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