Run automated quality checks on pixel art assets to catch color, contrast, banding, and isolated pixel issues before exporting.
Run compact pixel-art quality checks before export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| max_colors | No | ||
| min_contrast | No | ||
| max_banding_runs | 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 provided, the description must disclose behaviors, but it only states the bare action. It doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens when checks fail, whether it blocks export, or what output format is returned.
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 single sentence is admirably short and front-loaded with the action. Yet it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, omitting details that the tool needs to be invoked correctly.
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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling list of quality/export tools, the description is far from complete. It offers only the 'before export' clue and lacks pass/fail semantics, return values, and workflow integration details.
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 mentions none of the five parameters (filename, max_colors, min_contrast, max_banding_runs, max_isolated_pixels). The description adds zero meaning beyond the raw schema, so an agent cannot infer what 'quality checks' actually assess.
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 identifies the action ('run quality checks') and timing ('before export'), which is a clear verb+resource. However, 'compact' and 'gate' are undefined, and it doesn't distinguish itself from quality-related siblings like inspect_animation_quality, validate_scene, or audit_asset_manifest.
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 'before export' provides a clear timing context for when to invoke the tool. But it gives no alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no guidance on when to prefer this tool over other quality-check tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.