spritesheet

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (PNG spritesheet) and layout options, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether input canvases are modified) or any operational constraints. It's not contradictory, but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 moderate complexity and full schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the output format and layout options. Minor gaps include not specifying the return type or side effects, but the schema fills most gaps.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds only the layout types, which are redundant with the schema's enum. It provides minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 a specific verb ('Stitch') and resource ('multiple canvases') with a defined output ('single PNG spritesheet'). It also mentions supported layouts (horizontal, vertical, grid), which adds specificity and distinguishes it from general compose tools.

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 usage (when you need to combine multiple canvases into a spritesheet) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compose'. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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