sprite_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that the tool returns pass/fail numbers, explains what each check verifies, and notes that directories are accepted (all PNG/GIF inside). It does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe error behavior, but 'verify' plus the pass/fail framing makes the core behavior clear.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the check list is compactly structured, and the directory-handling note is directly actionable. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool's complexity — 8 parameters, 6 checks, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers the essential behavioral surface: what checks exist, what they catch, and how file inputs behave. It falls slightly short on specifying the exact return structure beyond 'pass/fail numbers' and on edge-case behavior, but it is strong enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the check enum values in detail (e.g., 'spread' catches 'bright from behind, dark from the front') and by clarifying that 'files' may be directories containing PNG/GIF. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run numeric consistency checks and get hard pass/fail numbers.' It then enumerates the exact checks (palette, jitter, spread, protected, leftover, scale) with one-line semantics, making the tool's scope unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like sprite_measure or sprite_repaint.

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 implies when to use the tool — 'the replacement for eyeballing hundreds of frames' — and clarifies that it is for numeric consistency verification. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against sprite_measure or colors_inspect.

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