pack_atlas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses side effects beyond the name: it packs sequence frames, and it copies the skeleton JSON next to the atlas so out_dir becomes a runtime folder. However, it omits overwrite behavior, required input state, and failure modes.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact. The parenthetical about sequence frames earns its place by clarifying scope; nothing is padding.

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 adequately explains the operation and its output structure, which is the main thing an agent needs. But with 7 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the parameter-level completeness is weak for a tool this configurable.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only alludes to out_dir ('out_dir is a ready runtime folder') and leaves pma, name, scale, max_size, strip_whitespace entirely unexplained. Most parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (pack) and resource (every image the skeleton references) plus the output artifact (Spine 4.x .atlas + pages). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like export_runtime, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The mention of 'ready runtime folder' implies a packaging stage, but the agent must infer when this step belongs in a workflow versus export_runtime.

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