art.aseprite.layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two important behaviors: it writes the script to disk and it only returns the command rather than executing it. It does not specify file paths, overwrite behavior, or permissions, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with no filler; the first names the deliverable and the second states side effect and return value. Every clause earns its place and key facts are front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, side effect, and return behavior. It is slightly incomplete on usage context and the generated script's details, but nothing critical is missing for calling it.

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%, so the schema already documents session_id and layers, including the defaults and bottom-to-top order. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond tying layers to the 'standard layer structure'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('standard layer structure'), and states the output is a Lua script plus an Aseprite command. This clearly separates it from sibling Aseprite tools like export, spritesheet, and validate.

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 intended use is implied by 'set up standard layer structure', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or distinguish it from canvas/layer setup siblings.

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