sprite_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses that open 'copies path into a new staging workspace', which is a side effect rather than a pure read, and says what each mode returns. It does not cover permission requirements, failure modes, or whether copies/workspaces persist.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organized as a compact bulleted mode list. Every line conveys a distinct operation, prerequisite, or return value with no 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 multi-mode tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all modes, required parameters, and return types sufficiently to select and invoke the tool. It lacks error-handling and permission details, but those are not essential for basic correct invocation.

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 no enums exist, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It maps every parameter to a mode: path for open, workspace_id for sprite_info/list_layers, family for operation_list, name for operation_describe, and mode for dispatch. This fully compensates for 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 opens with a specific verb and resources ('Read sprites, workspaces, and the operation catalog') and then lists six discrete modes with their targets. This clearly differentiates an inspection/listing tool from sibling tools like sprite_patch or sprite_export.

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?

Each mode is given a clear context and prerequisite: sprite_info and list_layers 'need workspace_id', operation_list has an 'optional family filter', and operation_describe takes 'name='. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling, so exclusions are missing, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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