import_image

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it creates an editable sprite, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file overwrite, permissions needed). Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Very concise: single-line summary followed by parameter descriptions. No fluff. Front-loaded with main purpose. Efficient structure.

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?

Given simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers core functionality and parameters. Missing return value (e.g., sprite ID) and whether it creates new project or imports to existing. Almost 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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds brief semantics for both parameters ('Source raster image', 'Destination .aseprite path'), which is helpful but minimal. Could specify accepted formats or constraints.

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?

Clearly states it creates an editable .aseprite sprite from flat images, with explicit input formats. Distinguishes from siblings which are export or manipulation tools.

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?

Implied usage as a first step for editing flat images, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned. Sibling tools like 'create_sprite' or 'stamp_file' are not differentiated.

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