art.aseprite.validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect (writes script to disk) and the return value (returns the command). However, it leaves ambiguous whether the tool actually executes the validation or only produces the command for the caller to run, and whether the session/canvas is modified.

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 zero filler. The generating action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently packages the side effect and the return value without redundancy.

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?

Reasonable for a simple 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves material questions open: whether validation actually runs or just yields a command string, and where the script is written. An agent cannot tell if the returned command must be executed separately.

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 four parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'palette size, dimensions' merely restates what max_colors/width/height convey, adding no genuinely new parameter semantics.

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') with a specific resource (validation Lua script and Aseprite command) and names the check targets (palette size, dimensions). Its subject matter clearly slots it apart from art.validate_style and art.tilemap.validate, though it never names a sibling explicitly to earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.tilemap.validate or art.validate_style, and no preconditions (e.g., Aseprite availability, session state) are stated. The clause 'to check sprite constraints' restates the purpose rather than providing usage context.

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