Generate Cocos Sprite Sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only describes high-level functionality (frames, packing, metadata) but omits critical behavioral details like file output, overwrite behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with 15 parameters and nested objects, this is insufficient.

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, making it concise but overly brief for a tool with 15 parameters and complex nested objects. It front-loads the main action but lacks structure or additional detail that would fit in a few more sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value (files, metadata). It does not. It also omits any mention of file generation, output directory implications, or the complexity of the generation process. The description is incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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 only 47%, leaving 8 parameters undocumented. The description adds zero parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how parameters like style, action, frameCount, or postprocess affect the output.

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 clearly states it generates an animation as frames, packs into a PNG sprite sheet, and emits Cocos/TexturePacker metadata. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_forge_generate_sprite (single sprite) and asset_forge_generate_sprite_grid_sheet (grid sheet).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sprite grid sheet or tileset generation.

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