raster_resize

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Resize image' without disclosing whether the original is modified, what the output parameter does, or if a new file is created. The behavior is opaque apart from the resize action itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. No redundant words or irrelevant details. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, output behavior, parameter combination rules, or effects on the original file. It covers the basic resize modes but leaves significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the fit modes (cover/contain/fill), scale factor, and width/height, giving semantic meaning to four of the six parameters. However, it omits the 'output' parameter and does not clarify parameter interactions, so it is not a 5.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb ('Resize') and resource ('image'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like raster_crop or raster_rotate. It also mentions the key modes (width/height, scale, fit), but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 by saying 'Provide width/height, scale factor, or fit mode,' but it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers basic usage modes but no context on selection criteria.

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