get_sprites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that it returns a sprite URL (not the image itself), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, error behavior, or network dependencies. For a simple resolver 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line adds value, and the format is easy to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers both inputs and the output format. The existence of an output schema means return details are handled elsewhere. It could mention what happens for invalid inputs, but that's not essential for a sprite URL lookup, so this is complete enough.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'name_or_dex' as Pokemon name or national dex number, 'side' with examples 'front'/'back', and 'variant' with examples 'default'/'shiny'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema titles and defaults.

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 ('Resolve') and clear resource ('sprite URL for a Pokemon'), making its purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pokemon or get_moves by focusing on sprite retrieval.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for getting sprite URLs, which implies when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the Args section clarifies the required inputs and typical usage, so context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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