build_spritesheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete artifacts produced (PNG, JSON atlas, GIF preview) plus engine compatibility, which is useful. However it says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing sheet name, error conditions, or how 'stage' processed vs raw affects inputs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, and every clause carries information (outputs, atlas format, engine targets, preview). The parentheticals make it dense but not wasteful.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully explains returns but omits behavioral details like naming collisions, stage semantics, and layout defaults. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing on several invocation decisions.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, so the description should compensate and largely does not. It alludes to GIF preview (gif_scale) and uniform cells, but align, stage, columns, padding, and fps have no meaning added beyond their terse or absent schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: packing frames into a sprite sheet with a companion PNG, JSON atlas, and GIF preview. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like slice_grid or video_to_frames, though it does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the required 'frames' array that this runs after assets exist, which is minimal implicit context.

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