Find empty bands at the edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the key trait: analysis produces a measurement plus a crop, and a file is only written when output_path is passed ('Pass output_path to save the cropped version'). Undisclosed behaviours remain — what overwrite=false does when the target exists, and whether the input file is ever touched — so it is not complete coverage of a tool that can write to disk.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: what it detects and returns first, then the optional write, then the workflow triggers. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With no output schema the description steps in to describe the return value (band proportion plus a crop), which is exactly the right compensation. Given a five-parameter tool with no annotations, the missing overwrite failure behaviour is the one substantive hole.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description only touches output_path, which the schema already documents ('If set and a band is found, the cropped image is saved here'). planned_edges ('Edges you left calm on purpose') and target_aspect shape preservation go unmentioned in prose, and overwrite is undocumented in both places. Adequate, but no added parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb and object: 'Measures an image for the empty band generated art often leaves at an edge' and 'returns how much of the frame it takes, plus a crop that removes it'. That is far more discriminating than sibling names like design_audit or media_probe, which are not named but are also clearly not about edge-band detection. No explicit sibling routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Run it on a draft before compositing and on the final file before shipping' gives two concrete moments to call it, which is real context rather than implication. No when-not-to guidance and no statement of what to do if the tool is a poor fit (e.g. an image with an intentional border), so no exclusion clause.

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