inspect_sprite

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden, and it does disclose the response payload (PNG image, dimensions, active layer/frame, revision, pixel matrix) in one call, which is genuinely useful. It still omits that this is a read-only/no-mutation operation, how the includePixels flag/token cost behaves, and any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role and then the payload, with no wasted clauses. The 'PRIMARY VISION TOOL' tag is mild framing rather than wasted space, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned artifacts, and combined with the 100%-covered input schema an agent has enough to invoke it. It stops short of clarifying read-only status or how the pixel grid interacts with the format/includePixels options.

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 all four parameters (scale, format, frameIndex, includePixels) are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the pixel matrix and adds no syntax or default guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspects) and resource (active sprite) and enumerates what a single call returns, which is more than the name conveys. It labels itself 'PRIMARY VISION TOOL' but never names or contrasts the overlapping siblings (get_pixel_grid, get_pixel_grid_preview, get_sprite_info), so an agent must still guess which inspection tool to reach for.

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?

'PRIMARY VISION TOOL' implies this is the default first look at visual state, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_sprite_info/get_pixel_grid_preview, and no exclusion criteria; the routing decision is left to inference.

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