Combine PNG or GIF frames into one deterministic PNG spritesheet while writing coordinates, bottom-center pivots, and delays to a manifest for game integration.
Assemble all frames of a PNG or GIF into a deterministic PNG spritesheet and write coordinates, bottom-center pivots, and delays to a manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columns | No | ||
| padding | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes | ||
| manifest_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: 'deterministic' discloses ordering/reproducibility guarantees, and it explicitly states that coordinates, bottom-center pivots, and delays are written to a manifest. It does not mention overwrite behavior or failure conditions, but the core side effects are clear.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and output, with every clause adding useful information: determinism, file formats, spritesheet output, and manifest contents. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: input formats, output format, and what the manifest contains. It is slightly incomplete on column/padding behavior and manifest format details, but an agent can meaningfully invoke the tool with the information provided.
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 clarifies that input_filename accepts a PNG or GIF, output_filename is a PNG spritesheet, and manifest_filename holds coordinates, pivots, and delays. However, columns and padding are not explained at all beyond the schema's numeric constraints and default.
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 names a specific action (assemble), a resource (frames of a PNG or GIF), and a concrete deliverable (deterministic PNG spritesheet plus manifest with coordinates, bottom-center pivots, and delays). It is distinct enough from siblings like build_contact_sheet or export_spritesheet because it emphasizes animation metadata and determinism.
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 'Assemble all frames of a PNG or GIF' implies when this tool applies, and the mention of a manifest implies it is for animation workflows rather than simple spritesheets. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing to siblings such as build_contact_sheet or export_spritesheet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.