pixel_slice_spritesheet

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the scan order (left-to-right, top-to-bottom), handling of partial tiles, naming pattern, behavior of skip_empty, and the exact JSON response structure. It adds significant value beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotency.

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 only 5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then followed by concise details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers input behavior, edge cases (partial tiles, transparent tiles), and output format. It also mentions error responses, making it complete for an agent to 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?

Despite the input schema having descriptions for all parameters, the context signals indicate 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the grid size, naming pattern, and skip_empty behavior, which adds meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool splits a spritesheet PNG into individual frames, using the verb 'split' and the resource 'spritesheet PNG'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pixel_export_spritesheet' which does the reverse operation, making the purpose very clear.

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 description says 'the way to bring existing game assets in for editing or re-animation', implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, which would make it a 5. Still, it provides good contextual guidance.

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