Get target

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 explains the output's content but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling for invalid names, whether a project must be loaded, or how this differs from get_target_json in terms of output format.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output details. No redundant words or filler; every element earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic return content but leaves important context unstated: how the output is structured, whether this is a friendly wrapper vs get_target_json, and what happens on error or missing targets. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a clear description ('Sprite name, or "Stage"'). The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'a sprite or the stage' but adds no new format, constraint, or usage detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 resource (one target, either a sprite or the stage) and what is included ('full details', 'variables and lists'). It communicates the retrieval purpose well, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_target_json, so it stops 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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_target_json or list_sprites. The only contextual hint is 'for one target', which implies single-target retrieval, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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