gui_available

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the check is non-destructive and return a boolean (implied). Could mention that it does not launch the GUI itself, but otherwise transparent enough.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, efficiently conveys meaning.

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 check with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. Slightly lacking detail on return type or edge cases, but adequate for selecting this tool.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining the purpose, which is sufficient given zero parameters.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool checks if the Aseprite GUI can be launched, with a precise condition 'executable resolvable'. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools which perform sprite editing or export operations.

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?

Implied usage context: use before GUI-dependent tasks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, but contrast with siblings suggests it's a precondition check. Lacks alternatives or exclusions.

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