process_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites files), what permissions or authentication are needed, rate limits, error handling, or output behavior. The description only covers the basic operation and file filtering, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 9 parameters and batch processing.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful clarification about non-image files. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, batch processing, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, error handling), output expectations, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a multi-operation batch tool, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool processes all images in a folder and skips non-images, but doesn't provide additional context on parameter interactions (e.g., how preset overrides width/height) or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Apply a convert, resize, or convert-and-resize operation') and target resource ('to all image files in a folder'), with explicit differentiation from siblings by noting it processes entire folders rather than individual images like convert_image or resize_image. The mention that 'Non-image files are automatically skipped' further clarifies scope.

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 usage context by specifying it operates on folders and skips non-image files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like convert_image or resize_image for single files, or how it relates to convert_and_resize (which might be a sibling tool for single images). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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