get_sprite_info

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only operation. The description goes beyond that by detailing the return structure (size, color mode, frames, layer tree, tags, slices, tilesets, palette size, grid, selection), which is valuable because there is no output schema. It does not discuss live-vs-batch output differences, but that is handled in 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?

A single sentence with the main purpose front-loaded, followed by an efficient colon list. It is appropriately sized for a read tool and avoids filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure, and annotations cover safety. The schema handles parameters completely. Minor gaps remain around how live vs batch mode affects the returned structure, but the description is largely complete for this read tool.

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 the schema fully documents sprite, backend, and includeCels. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Returns a sprite's full structure') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like list_sprites, get_cels, or get_palette, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as list_sprites or get_palette. The schema handles parameter defaults, but the description itself provides no routing information.

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