split_sprite_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that transparent cells are skipped by default and mentions margins and spacing. However, it does not reveal whether the original file is modified or if there are any destructive side effects, which is relevant for a tool that creates new documents.

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 sentences front-load the core purpose and input format, followed by essential notes on skipping empty cells and margin/spacing. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main algorithm and defaults adequately. It could mention that created documents are added to the active document list, but overall it is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke 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?

With 80% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the row-major order, the mutual exclusivity of png_base64 and path, and the default skip_empty behavior. This helps an agent use parameters correctly.

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 the tool splits a regular PNG sprite sheet into separate pixel-mcp documents in row-major order. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from sibling tools like pack_sprite_sheet (which likely does the opposite) and other document operations.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to split a sprite sheet. It explicitly requires providing one of png_base64 or path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling context hints at pack_sprite_sheet as the inverse operation.

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