sprite_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the output (returns an image) and mentions the behavior of returning path only for large sheets in the schema. It doesn't mention potential side effects like file overwriting or error conditions, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 slightly verbose with a motivational clause ('every visual defect we ever caught...'), but it's still concise and well-structured. It opens with the verb and object, then details, and ends with a usage tip. The extra sentence adds value without being redundant.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for typical use: it's for visual inspection and consistency checking. It doesn't elaborate on error scenarios or edge cases, but the core purpose and usage are covered. The context signals (sibling tools) further clarify its role.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema with clear meanings (e.g., files, outFile, crop, zoom, cellW, cellH, maxFrames, returnImage). The description reinforces key concepts like row-per-file and column-per-frame. The schema coverage is 100%, and the descriptions are precise, leaving little ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: composing a zoomed contact sheet from sprites. It specifies the arrangement (one row per file, one column per frame) and that it returns an image, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like sprite_measure or sprite_verify.

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 provides usage context: it's for visual inspection and consistency checking ('so you can LOOK at what you just made', 'Judge consistency on sheets'). It also hints at using crop for zooming. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context is fairly clear.

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