resize_image

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

The description discloses it is AI-powered and preserves quality, with step recommendations. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It omits details about output format, side effects, or behavior when limits are exceeded, but provides some useful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a tool description.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description is too brief given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema). It does not explain key parameters like seed, view, direction, or how the tool handles multiple inputs. Compared to similar tools, more context is needed.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reiterating size limits (16-200px) and the step guidance, which are not explicit in schema descriptions. This enhances understanding beyond raw field definitions.

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 resizes pixel art images to a different resolution while preserving quality, with specific size limits (16-200px). It uses a specific verb ('resize') and resource ('pixel art image'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides practical usage advice: 'Best in steps: max 50% shrink or 2x grow per operation.' This helps the agent know how to use the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives.

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