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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral constraint, the 'visible' scope, but never explains what invisible means or whether results are paginated — notable given a 'limit' parameter exists.

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 the action and filter scope, with no filler. The domain sentence is somewhat tangential but earns its place by clarifying what a sprite is versus a part or piece.

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?

A listing tool with five optional parameters, none documented in the schema, and no output schema — the description should therefore define filter semantics and return behavior. It covers only two filters loosely and says nothing about pagination limits, the 'type' discriminator, or what a listing entry contains.

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% across five parameters. The description only hints at templateId/partId via 'filtered by template or part' and is silent on 'type', 'limit', and 'onlyCustom', which are entirely unexplained anywhere. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List visible sprites') plus the optional filter axes (template, part), which separates it from get_sprite and create_sprite. The second sentence adds domain grounding (in-game characters, objects, platforms) that helps an agent recognize the resource.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by template or part' implies the filter use cases, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_sprite for a single sprite or list_templates/list_parts for parent entities. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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