Sb3 Get Target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that both sprites and the Stage are valid inputs and that the call is proxied, but it never explains what proxied means (latency, auth, or data freshness implications), how unknown names are handled, or whether any side effects exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes. The '(proxied)' parenthetical is slightly cryptic but adds a behavioral hint without bloating the text.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter getter with an output schema, the core purpose is covered. However, the unexplained proxy behavior and the unstated parameter semantics are gaps an agent must guess at; the lack of sibling differentiation also weakens completeness.

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 0% and the description never explicitly states that 'name' is the target's name, nor whether an internal or display name is expected. It is inferable from the tool name and purpose, but the description adds essentially no meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description 'Full details for a sprite or Stage' names the resource (a target) and the nature of the operation (returning complete details), so an agent can grasp the core purpose. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling sb3_get_target_json, and the verb is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_get_target_json, sb3_list_sprites, or sb3_get_target_json. The parenthetical '(proxied)' hints at a mechanism, not at usage context, and no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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