Convert sprite alpha into a tangent-space normal map for 3D shading. Specify input and output files, adjust strength to control depth.
Generate a deterministic tangent-space normal map from sprite alpha depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Generate', implying a non-destructive operation, but there is no mention of side effects, whether it overwrites files, or any computational side effects. The 'deterministic' trait is mentioned, but the behavioral implications of determinism (e.g., same input always same output) are not elaborated. This is minimal disclosure.
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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it may be too brief given the lack of other details. It earns a high score for conciseness but not for content.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. An agent needs to know what the output is (normal map format), how parameters like 'strength' affect the result, and any prerequisites (e.g., sprite must have alpha). The tool is likely used for asset generation, but the description doesn't connect it to any workflow.
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 explain the parameters. It mentions 'alpha depth' as the source, which relates to 'input_filename', but doesn't explain 'output_filename', 'format', or 'strength'. For example, 'strength' is not defined as a multiplier or exponent. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's basic names and constraints.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a deterministic tangent-space normal map from sprite alpha depth'), which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'generate_sprite_shadow' or 'apply_material_texture', which could also involve depth or normals. It does imply the use of alpha depth as input, but the uniqueness is not explicit.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large sibling list with similar generation tools, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.