inspect_sprite_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it reasonably conveys a read-only inspection operation through the verb 'Inspect'. It also lists the computed geometric quantities, giving agents a clear idea of what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly state that the sprite is unmodified.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence front-loads the main action and lists the key outputs without filler. Every word adds information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the categories of results and gives a placement context. It does not describe output structure or the effect of min_component_pixels, but the tool is a relatively simple read-only geometry inspection, so the essential context is present.

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 compensate, but it does not explain either parameter. filename is self-evident, but min_component_pixels—its meaning, effect on connected components, and recommended values—is left entirely to the schema's name and numeric bounds.

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 ('Inspect') with a specific resource ('sprite geometry') and enumerates concrete outputs: per-frame alpha bounds, connected components, baseline, and bottom-center pivots. This clearly differentiates it from generation tools like generate_sprite_hitboxes or generate_sprite_anchors.

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 'for scene placement' gives a clear intended use case, but the description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It relies on the reader to infer appropriate context from the tool type and sibling names.

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