smart_crop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the algorithms (entropy/attention) but does not disclose side effects, input requirements, output behavior, or limitations. For example, it does not state whether the original file is modified, whether upscaling occurs, or how the crop region is determined beyond the strategy names.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it does omit useful detail; however, it earns high marks for brevity. This is appropriate given the schema carries parameter details.

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 5 parameters, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description leaves many contextual gaps: no mention of output file handling, aspect ratio behavior, error scenarios, or how to choose between strategies. The sibling 'auto_crop' adds ambiguity about the tool's unique value.

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 already documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the strategies, which are already detailed in the enum descriptions for 'strategy'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 crops an image to specified dimensions and mentions the two strategies (entropy or attention). It uses a specific verb ('crop') and resource ('image'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'auto_crop' tool.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auto_crop'. It simply describes what it does. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit use-case context.

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