Project info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read but never states that it is side-effect free, nor whether the response can be large or requires a loaded project; the only real disclosure is the list of returned facets, which is closer to output description than behavior.

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 compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. The colon-separated field list is efficient, though it substitutes enumeration for an actual explanation of what the tool is.

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 must describe what comes back, and it does list the summary facets. It is still thin for a whole-project read: no read-only assurance, no indication of default/active-project behavior, and no differentiation from the many sibling inspection tools.

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?

There is a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains the project id and the active-project fallback. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the 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 verb 'Inspect' plus the enumerated fields (size, palette, roles, frames, durations, layers, tags) convey that this returns a full project summary. However, 'inspect' collides directly with the sibling tool sprite_inspect, and nothing in the description distinguishes the two or separates this from sprite_list_projects/sprite_preview.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than sprite_inspect, sprite_preview, or sprite_list_projects. The only usage-like guidance ('Omit to use the active project') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no routing context.

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