forge_background

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'No post-processing' and 'outputs the full image as-is', which clarifies the output behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or any limitations, though for a generation tool these are less critical.

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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value—purpose, behavioral guarantee, and a usage hint—without unnecessary verbosity.

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 rich input schema (5 parameters, enums, descriptions) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context for a simple generation tool. It clarifies the output format and the key aspect ratio consideration. It lacks some details like output resolution defaults, but the schema and no-post-processing note make it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to heavily clarify parameters. It adds a small note about matching aspect ratio to game resolution, which is already implied in the schema's description for 'aspect'. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the 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 clearly states 'Generate a pixel art game background' with a specific verb and resource, and further distinguishes from post-processing tools by noting 'No post-processing — outputs the full image as-is'. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like process_sprite.

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 gives practical guidance about aspect ratio ('Use appropriate aspect ratio for your game resolution') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like forge_sprite or forge_thumbnail. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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