art.aseprite.spritesheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a side effect ('The canvas PNG is saved') and clarifies that a CLI command is returned rather than executed. However, it omits details such as where the PNG is saved, whether files are overwritten, whether the command must be run separately, and what the command actually looks like.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the most important behavioral detail—that this returns a CLI command—is included immediately.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the basic return concept ('a CLI command is returned') but not the command format, the relationship between the saved PNG and the command, or any prerequisites such as an existing canvas session. These are clear gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults, ranges, and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'Generate a spritesheet export command for a canvas session.' It also explains the two key outcomes: the canvas PNG is saved and a CLI command is returned. It is distinct enough from siblings like art.aseprite.export because it emphasizes command generation rather than direct export, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus art.aseprite.export, art.aseprite.layers, or other Aseprite-related tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement, not explained.

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