unzoom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing the crucial side effect that the result is opaque (transparency composited onto white) and suggesting remove_background for cutouts. It also discloses input constraints and tolerance for uneven grids, giving agents a realistic expectation of behavior.

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?

Four tightly written sentences cover purpose, an example, input constraints, a critical output side effect, and usage timing. Nothing is wasted and the most important behavioral trait (opaque output) is given prominence.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential call context: purpose, constraints, side effects, and follow-up actions. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the phrase 'result is OPAQUE' and the guidance around it sufficiently imply an image output.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains what kind of image qualifies ('32x32 sprite saved at 512x512'), why the grid detection matters, and the expected input size. It does not discuss quantize in prose, but the schema already documents that parameter thoroughly.

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 a specific verb ('recover', 'downsample') and resource ('native-resolution pixel art from an upscaled image'), with an illustrative example. It clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like correct_pixelart and image_to_pixelart by framing it as a pre-processing step.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use before passing user-supplied art as a style/reference image, or before correct_pixelart.' It also directs to remove_background as a follow-up when transparency is needed. It does not enumerate when not to use it versus sibling tools, but the placement guidance is clear and actionable.

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