inspect_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Analyze' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the listed properties give a sense of scope, but there is no statement about side effects, error conditions, or what the returned analysis contains.

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 with no filler, an active verb up front, and every listed attribute adds useful information. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter analysis tool.

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 tells an agent what will be analyzed but, with no output schema and no annotations, omits the result shape and any usage caveats. For a simple one-parameter read-only tool this is adequate, though not fully complete.

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%, and the description never mentions the filename parameter or constrains its format, path, or accepted file types. The only inferable meaning comes from the tool name and parameter property name, which is weaker than explicit parameter guidance.

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 specific verb ('Analyze') and names a resource ('reference') with an explicit list of attributes: dimensions, dominant colors, contrast, edges, and transparency. This gives enough specificity to distinguish it from siblings like inspect_sprite_geometry, though 'reference' is not fully disambiguated.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling inspection tools such as inspect_sprite_geometry, inspect_asset_bundle, or inspect_animation_quality. The description implies an analysis context but provides no selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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