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

The 'Read-only' sentence merely restates readOnlyHint=true, earning no credit. What does add value beyond annotations is the disclosed ordering ('most recently changed first') and the enumeration of returned fields, though pagination/limits are unstated.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the ordering and safety note. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list makes it slightly dense.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, the ordering, and the scope. Missing only pagination/limit behavior and how to obtain project_id.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage. The description implies it must identify a single project, but never states the required project_id, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_projects). Partial compensation 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 sprites) scoped to a single project, and even names the returned fields (names, ids, sizes, frame counts). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of them are sprite-listing tools, so ambiguity is low.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in one project' – an agent infers project_id scoping and that this is the way to enumerate sprites. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named (e.g., versus get_sprite_from_library or open_full_editor).

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