sprite_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned information including layer/cel/link details and warnings, which implies a read-only inspection operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating, what permissions or file-access assumptions apply, or what the response format looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the important return categories. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no waste.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does so with a strong list of structural fields and warnings. The main remaining gap is that the input path parameter is undocumented and no annotations are available, but for a simple one-parameter inspection tool the definition is largely 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 the description does not mention the single path parameter at all. While 'path' is intuitive for a sprite-information tool, the description adds no semantics about what kind of path is expected or how it is interpreted.

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 identifies the resource as a sprite and enumerates the structural information returned: size, frame durations, layer tree, tags, slices, palette size, and warnings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'inspect' or 'retrieve', and it does not name a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies that this tool is used to inspect a sprite's structure, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings such as view, lint, or check_animation. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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