asset_generate_splash_screen

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

The description lists output files and states that inline_svg is not supported. However, with only openWorldHint: true in annotations, it does not specify behaviors like file overwriting, permissions, or network calls. The added detail is moderate.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and efficiently delivers constraints and output details without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, multiple platforms, multiple output files), the description covers the core workflow, key constraints, and output file list. It lacks details on some parameters but is largely complete for a generation tool.

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 14%; the description adds meaning to existing_mark_svg (preferred path) and explains mode values. It does not elaborate on brief, brand_bundle, or output_dir, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 tool's purpose: generating a cross-platform splash-screen bundle from a brand mark. It specifies that inline_svg is not supported and outlines the output files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like asset_generate_app_icon.

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 explains the prerequisite: first generate a logo inline_svg then call this tool with existing_mark_svg. It also mentions two modes but does not elaborate on when to use each. It provides clear context for use.

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