download_object_spritesheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that frames are never rescaled, are centred in equal cells, and that it saves to a specific output directory and returns the file path. It also warns about errors during rotation generation. This is transparent behavior beyond the schema.

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 concise and informative, providing key details upfront (what it exports, the format structure) and then usage-specific behavior. It is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then fills in details.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the output format, location, and caveats. It could mention how to handle the returned file path, but that's minor given the simplicity.

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?

The schema covers object_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra parameter-specific details, but the single parameter is straightforward, and the description explains the context of the spritesheet export.

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 the tool exports an object as a spritesheet, including the specific format (ZIP with PNG and JSON), the layout structure (rows for rotations and directions, columns for frames), and the output destination. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_character_spritesheet and download_character_zip.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for exporting objects as spritesheets, and it notes it only works for user-created objects. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing this over them, but the specification is enough for basic usage.

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