get_sprite_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior and says 'Read', making clear this is a non-mutating operation, and adds 'as JSON' to set response expectations. It lists the specific information returned, which is good context, though it does not mention error handling or access requirements.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the entire return surface into a compact list. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter metadata read with no output schema, and the description lists exactly what will be returned as JSON. An agent can invoke it correctly based on this text; only minor details such as error behavior are absent.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the filename parameter, but the single parameter name and the tool's 'get_sprite_info' purpose make its meaning self-evident. The description provides context that the filename refers to a sprite, which slightly compensates for the missing schema description.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Read sprite') and enumerates the exact data returned: dimensions, color mode, frame durations, layers, and tags. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as inspect_sprite_geometry.

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 implies use when an agent needs sprite metadata as JSON, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like inspect_sprite_geometry or get_tilemap_info. There are no explicit exclusions, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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