slice_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work: it discloses the trim default (True), the mutual-exclusivity rule between rows/cols and frame_width/frame_height, and the fact that slicing writes per-frame PNG files to local paths. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or permissions, but the essential write semantics are visible.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the rationale, then a compact parameter block and the return value. Every segment earns its place; only the deferral of image input semantics to other tools is slightly loose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the return shape (local PNG paths). With no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description supplies the constraints an agent needs to choose between the two sizing modes, making it adequately complete.

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 all 7 params are bare titles, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents the two image-input alternatives, the rows/cols pair, the frame_width/frame_height alternative, the trim flag with its default, and the exclusivity constraint that the schema cannot express. Only the image_path vs image_base64 distinction is deferred to 'same as other image tools'.

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 and resource ('把排成网格的 sprite sheet 切成单帧 PNG') and even explains the motivating case (image models laying out 2x2 grids instead of separate frames). No sibling tool covers sheet slicing, so the distinction 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('让生图模型画"4 帧动画"时它会摆成 2x2 网格而不是 4 张图, 用本工具切开'), which tells the agent exactly when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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