ygo_slice_art_grid

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits beyond structured data: automatic grid detection, gutter removal, fixed 1024x1024 output at JPEG quality 95, and that files are written directly into the game's Arts/ folder. It omits overwrite semantics, whether missing output directories are created, and what happens when detection fails or card ID count mismatches the grid.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, and the operation sequence plus output destination are front-loaded. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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?

For a six-parameter filesystem-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers output format and destination adequately. It leaves the agent without guidance on the docx-vs-manual-ID branch, default output location, or overwrite behavior, which are the gaps most likely to cause a wrong call.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description and the baseline is 3. The description adds output characteristics (resolution, quality) not present in the schema, but clarifies nothing about how cols/rows interact with auto-detection or which of docxPath/cardIds takes precedence.

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 chain (detect grid, remove gutters, slice) and a concrete resource (AI contact sheet -> <id>.jpg card arts), with the output location and format named. An agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling ygo_slice_batch_art, so the differentiation gap keeps it at 4.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a grid image must exist on disk), and no mention of the alternative slicing tool. Nothing tells the agent whether to supply docxPath or cardIds, which is the main decision this tool forces.

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