get_sprite_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only getter, and the enumeration of returned fields partially compensates for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about side effects, error behavior when no sprite is active, or any permission/state requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every enumerated item is load-bearing because there is no output schema describing the return shape.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensation and covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens with no active sprite), which is not addressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space inventing parameter semantics.

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 ('structural information about the active sprite'), then enumerates exactly what is returned (dimensions, color mode, layers, frames, active layer/frame, revision). This distinguishes it from pixel-oriented siblings like get_pixel_grid, but it never differentiates itself from inspect_sprite or get_canvas, which sound like overlapping reads.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'complete structural information' implies a full-state snapshot use case, but the agent is given no condition, prerequisite, or named alternative (e.g. inspect_sprite, get_canvas) to route between them.

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