Sprite info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: reading full state before editing prevents file corruption from guesswork. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 carry the essential information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a high-value usage warning that earns its place.

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 read-only inspection tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates what state is available, signals when to call it, and explains why it matters. Missing details like optional parameter behavior are already covered by the input schema.

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 67%, with 'sprite' and 'includePalette' already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level guidance, and 'includeSlices' lacks schema documentation, but its meaning is reasonably inferable from the name and the return-state list.

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 identifies the tool as returning the full structured state of a sprite, enumerating dimensions, color mode, palette, layers, frames, tags, slices, and selection. It is specific about the resource and content, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'look' or 'read_pixels'.

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 gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Read this before editing.' It also explains why using it beforehand matters by warning against guessing layer names or frame counts. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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