auto_crop

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 disclosing behavior. It states the crop action but does not mention that it writes to an output path, whether the original is modified, if existing files are overwritten, or what happens when no border is detected. This is a significant transparency gap for a transformation tool.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details; every word contributes to the core message.

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 relatively simple tool with complete schema parameter descriptions, the description covers the main use case but omits behavioral details like output handling and edge-case behavior (e.g., if no border is found). The lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context, but the schema does mitigate the parameter gap.

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 100% with each parameter described (input, output, threshold, backgroundColor). The description adds context about 'borders, whitespace, or solid color backgrounds' which loosely maps to threshold and backgroundColor, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 specific function: automatically crop to remove borders, whitespace, or solid color backgrounds. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like smart_crop, which implies a different cropping purpose (content-aware). The verb 'crop' and resource 'image' are explicit.

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 implies when to use the tool (when borders or solid backgrounds need removal) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like smart_crop. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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