Arrange sprite previews into a deterministic contact sheet and produce a JSON manifest for asset navigation.
Fit heterogeneous sprite previews into a deterministic nearest-neighbor contact sheet and write a navigable JSON manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| columns | No | ||
| padding | No | ||
| cell_width | Yes | ||
| cell_height | Yes | ||
| input_filenames | 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal determinism and the creation of a JSON manifest, but it omits important behavior such as whether existing output files are overwritten, whether input files must exist, or what happens on failure.
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 a single, dense sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core purpose. It is well-structured, though it sacrifices useful parameter and usage detail for brevity.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling toolset, this one-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence. The manifest structure, layout semantics, and relationship to similar sheet-building tools are all unspecified.
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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the description does not compensate. None of cell_width, cell_height, columns, padding, or the filename parameters are explained beyond their names, leaving the agent to guess layout semantics and expected formats.
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's job: fitting heterogeneous sprite previews into a nearest-neighbor contact sheet and writing a JSON manifest. It is specific about the resource and output, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like build_animation_sheet or export_spritesheet.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as build_animation_sheet, export_spritesheet, or inspect_asset_batch. No use-case context, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.