get_pixel_grid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the coordinate system and output format options, but omits permissions, side effects (though 'Returns' implies read-only), and return structure. It adds some useful behavioral context but remains incomplete.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with purpose and coordinate system, with a compact parenthetical listing format options. No wasted words.

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 tool with five parameters, nested region object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, coordinates, and output formats. It lacks explicit return shape and layer/frame selection behavior, but the schema fills in defaults and constraints.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying absolute canvas coordinates with origin (0,0) top-left, which clarifies how region x/y are interpreted, and by labeling compact as token-saving. Other parameters are already well covered by 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('exact pixel values from the canvas or cel'), plus scope in absolute canvas coordinates. It distinguishes itself from get_pixel_grid_preview through the emphasis on 'exact' values, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description implies pixel inspection but does not help an agent choose between get_pixel_grid, get_pixel_grid_preview, get_canvas, or inspect_sprite.

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