sprite_critiqueScores sprite color economy, silhouette, outline, shading and animation on a 0–100 scale with S–D grades, then returns concrete next tool calls. Run it before exporting.
Scores color economy, silhouette, outline, shading and animation (0–100, grade S–D) and returns concrete next tool calls. Use it before exporting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project id. Omit to use the active project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does a decent job: it discloses the output shape (score, letter grade, and concrete next tool calls), which is the key behavior of a critique tool. It omits whether the tool mutates the project and whether it costs generation budget, so the safety profile still has to be inferred.
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 short sentences with the rubric and output format front-loaded and the usage cue last. Nothing is wasted.
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 one-optional-parameter critique tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is measured, the score scale, the grade, and that next tool calls come back. The only real gap is that it does not state that the critique leaves the project unchanged.
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 coverage is 100% and the single optional project parameter is already documented as "Project id. Omit to use the active project." The description adds no further semantics about that parameter, so the schema-side baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ("Scores") plus the exact rubric it evaluates: color economy, silhouette, outline, shading and animation. The detail of the numeric 0–100 scale, S–D grade and returned next-tool calls makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like sprite_inspect or sprite_export, though it never names those siblings.
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?
"Use it before exporting" gives one concrete when-to-use cue, which is genuinely helpful context. It offers no when-not guidance and does not name an alternative tool (e.g. sprite_verify_integrity or sprite_inspect) for cases where a correctness check rather than a quality critique is wanted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.