get_sprite_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read-only operation returning a JSON string. However, it does not mention whether any state changes occur (likely none) or any authorization needed. For a simple inspection tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus an argument definition. The core purpose is stated immediately. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully adequate. It lists the key fields returned and the argument, leaving no critical gaps for a user to understand how to invoke the 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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'filename' with type string. The description adds valuable semantics by stating it is the 'Name of the Aseprite file to inspect', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'sprite info as JSON string' with concrete fields (size, color mode, frame durations, layers, tags). This immediately distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform modifications or animations.

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 states the tool returns sprite info, implying it is for inspection purposes. While it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are mostly mutation-oriented, so the context strongly suggests using this for read-only queries.

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