Inspect up to 32 sprite files in one pass, validate color counts and isolated pixels, and receive a compact quality summary.
Inspect up to 32 sprites in one deterministic quality pass and return a compact collection summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filenames | Yes | ||
| max_colors | No | ||
| max_isolated_pixels | No |
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 transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is deterministic and returns a 'compact collection summary', which is useful context beyond the name. However, it does not clarify what 'quality pass' evaluates, whether there are side effects, or what happens on failure, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, specifying the action, scope, determinism, and output type.
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 adequate for a simple inspection tool but not complete: there is no output schema, no explanation of the returned summary format, and no details on the quality thresholds or how the two optional parameters affect behavior. Given the tool has three parameters and no annotation support, more context is needed for confident use.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate. It only hints at the filenames parameter via 'up to 32 sprites', leaving max_colors and max_isolated_pixels entirely unexplained in relation to the quality pass. An agent would not understand what to pass for those parameters from the 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 clearly identifies a specific verb ('Inspect'), a resource ('sprites'), and a bounded scope ('up to 32 sprites'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_asset_bundle or inspect_animation_quality. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, and 'quality pass' remains somewhat vague.
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 'up to 32 sprites in one deterministic quality pass' implies a batch-inspection scenario, giving some context about when to use the tool. But it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives such as inspect_asset_bundle or inspect_sprite_geometry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.