pixel_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail the annotations do not: the default response is short, and per-topic responses are larger, deeper resources. It does not specify the response format (text vs. structured), which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first states purpose and timing, the second states the escalation path and enumerates topics. No filler or repetition.

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 optional enum parameter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the meaning of every enum value. The only missing piece is what the returned content looks like (text guide vs. JSON), which an agent would benefit from knowing before invoking.

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 enum has no per-value documentation, so the description must carry that load. It does: it explains guide, workflow, schema, example, and groups the source-format schemas (poses, scenes, autotile, fx, fluid, wave, normals). The grouped values are only implied rather than individually described, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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 (returns a quick start) plus concrete resources (recipe format, operations, tools, workflow), and names the exact topics available. It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings (validate, inspect, patch, render, compile, scene, import), which are action tools rather than documentation 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?

"Start here before drawing pixel art..." gives an explicit entry-point instruction, and "Pass a topic only when you need more" gives an explicit condition for using the optional parameter versus the default. No alternatives or exclusions are needed here because this is the entry tool by design.

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