get_sprite_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get'), which is appropriate, but does not disclose any additional traits such as idempotency, side effects, or permission requirements. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that lists all relevant metadata types. No extraneous information, perfectly concise.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and scope of the tool. It could mention return format or error cases, but the context is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter filePath, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the sprite file'. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed sprite metadata' and enumerates the types of metadata (dimensions, layers, frames, tags, palette, slices), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sprite or list_frames.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need comprehensive sprite metadata), but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among read-oriented siblings.

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