get_sprite_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation by saying 'Get info' and lists what data is returned, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., when no sprite is active) or return format. Basic transparency is present, but richer detail is absent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no repetition or filler.

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 simple parameter-less getter, the description covers the essential purpose and the data fields returned. There is no output schema, but the listed fields (size, layers, frames, filename) provide adequate context. It could be more complete by noting behavior when no sprite is open, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully described as an empty object. With no parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter details that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with the resource ('info about the active sprite') and enumerates the exact data categories (size, layers, frames, filename). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_layer or get_palette.

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 implies usage: when you need details about the currently active sprite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it provides only implied guidance.

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