get_cel

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it lists the returned properties and explains that linked_with reveals shared-image cels, where editing any one changes all of them.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. Every sentence adds useful information, and the linked-cel caveat is placed immediately after the core purpose.

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?

The description adequately covers the read-only inspection purpose and return properties, and it explains the important linked_with semantics. However, with no output schema and only 33% schema parameter coverage, it should do more to explain the filename, layer, and frame parameters needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33%, with filename and layer required but undocumented. The description does not explain filename, layer, or frame, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (a cel), then enumerates what is returned: existence, position, bounds, opacity, and links. This clearly distinguishes get_cel from mutation siblings such as set_cel_position, set_cel_opacity, and delete_cel.

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 naming the inspection operation and explaining linked cels, but it does not explicitly say when to use get_cel versus alternatives like get_pixels, get_sprite_info, or list_sprites. No when-not conditions are provided.

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