get_sprite_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only, local safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the breadth of returned data (e.g. 'the full layer tree'), but says nothing about error behavior, missing files, or performance. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and then lists returned fields with no filler or repetition. Every clause earns its place by describing the output shape.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly with an explicit field list. Read-only annotations cover safety and the lone parameter is obvious, leaving only usage guidance as the notable gap.

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?

The single parameter 'filename' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or clarifies whether it is a path, bare name, or extension. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description contributes no additional meaning to 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+resource ('Return structured info about a sprite') and enumerates the exact fields returned (size, colour mode, frames, layer tree, tags, palette size), so the agent knows precisely what this produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related inspection siblings such as get_pixels, get_properties, or assess_sprite.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_pixels, get_properties, get_cel, or assess_sprite, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only weakly implied by the fact that it returns metadata rather than pixel data.

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