sprite_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key side effect, 'writes under workspace artifacts', which is valuable. But it does not clarify whether it overwrites existing artifacts, whether the staged state is modified, or what happens on repeated calls.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loadedhare, and the side-effect warning is neatly contained in a parenthetical.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't say what the tool returns, where exactly artifacts are written, or what 'staged frame' means. An agent is left guessing about the result format and how to locate the preview artifact.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does connect 'scaled' to scale, 'frame' to frame_index, and 'workspace' to workspace_id, giving partial context. However, it doesn't explain scaling interpretation, frame indexing, or artifact output details.

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 identifies a specific action, 'Render a scaled still', a resource ('a staged frame'), and a purpose ('for review'). It is distinguishable from siblings by name and intent, though it does not explicitly contrast with sprite_inspect 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?

The phrase 'for review' implies when to use it, and 'scaled still' suggests a lightweight, visual check rather than a full export. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead.

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