Aseprite MCP Tools
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., draw_rectangle vs draw_rectangle_at, adjust_hsl vs adjust_hsl_native, and multiple frame auditing tools. Descriptions help somewhat but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity.
Naming Consistency2/5Tool names mix verb_noun (add_frame), verb_preposition (draw_circle_at), and gerund phrases (offset_cel_positions). The addition of 'at' and 'native' suffixes is inconsistent, and creation verbs vary (add vs create).
Tool Count1/5With 113 tools, the server is far too large for a focused MCP. Many tools are redundant, like the 'at' variants that merely add layer/frame parameters. The count overwhelms the agent and suggests poor scoping.
Completeness4/5The toolset covers an extensive range of Aseprite operations: frame, layer, drawing, filtering, palette, export, animation, and tilemap. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated stroke/brush settings), but the escape hatch run_lua_script fills most needs.
Average 3.5/5 across 100 of 113 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral details like whether the copy is destructive, if it includes all cel properties, or the effect of the 'replace' parameter. The tool is a mutation but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence) but omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a cel is, prerequisites, return behavior, or the role of 'filename'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter, including the critical 'replace' boolean or the ambiguous 'filename' parameter. An agent cannot infer correct usage from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (cel) and the context (from one frame to another). It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_frame' or 'clear_cel' by specifying the cel-level operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'copy_frame' or 'create_cel'. The description lacks context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'create or update' but does not specify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on update, or any side effects. The direction values are listed but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, but it sacrifices essential details. It is structured with a purpose line and a list of direction values, yet it omits critical information about parameters and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 43 sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how tags interact with the sprite, or how creation differs from updating.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. Only 'direction' is elaborated with its allowed values; 'name', 'filename', 'from_frame', and 'to_frame' are not described, leaving the agent unclear about their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create or update an animation tag on the sprite', which identifies the verb and resource. However, 'animation tag' is a specific concept that may not be clear to all agents, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_tag or export_tag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it contrast with related tools such as delete_tag or export_tag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key behaviors such as whether existing cels are replaced (parameter 'replace'), whether missing cels are created ('create_missing_cels'), or how the source frame index affects the tween. The minimalist description leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or assumptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, but it sacrifices completeness. It does not provide enough information to earn its place; it essentially restates the tool name with minor elaboration. For a tool with 11 parameters, this is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 6 required, many sibling tween tools), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks an overview of tween behavior, relationship to other tween tools, and explanation of keyframe concepts. The absence of output schema further increases the need for descriptive completeness, which is unmet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain any of the 11 parameters, including critical ones like start_scale, end_scale, easing, or anchor. The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which may be insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tweens cel scale with easing across a frame range, specifying the verb 'tween', resource 'cel scale', and context 'with easing across a frame range'. It is distinguishable from siblings like tween_cel_opacity_eased, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tween_cel_opacity_eased or tween_cel_positions_eased. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose critical behaviors: whether cels are created if missing, whether existing cels are overwritten, what happens if layers don't exist, or the return value. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope. However, it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain behavior, parameter roles, or return values. A minimal viable description would need more detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter detail. The tool name and description hint at what 'layer_names', 'start_frame', and 'end_frame' do, but there is no explicit explanation. For a tool with 4 parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'ensure' and the resource 'cels exist for layers across a frame range'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_cel' (single cel) and 'propagate_cels' (duplication). However, it could be more precise about whether it creates cels if missing or only checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among sibling tools like 'create_cel', 'copy_cel', 'propagate_cels', there is no indication of the specific use case. The description implies a batch operation but offers no context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only says 'Configure onion skin settings,' which omits behavioral details like whether it modifies live settings or requires a sprite to be open. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it underspecifies the tool's function given the number of parameters. It could be restructured to include key parameter details without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, effect on the sprite, or any related concepts, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names from the schema. It does not explain what 'after', 'before', 'opacity' etc. do, leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures onion skin settings for Aseprite, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that deal with other settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'render_onion_skin' or other configuration tools. The context of onion skin settings is not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'validates' and 'returns JSON', but does not indicate if it is read-only (likely safe), performance implications, or whether it modifies state. No mention of error cases or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by stating purpose and return value, but lacks important details, making it less efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return format (JSON with missing layers and missing cels) but not its structure. It fails to cover the parameters or provide enough context for a tool with 4 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter (filename, required_layers, start_frame, end_frame). The user cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: validate presence of layers and cels across a frame range and return missing items. The verb 'validate' and the resource 'layers and cels' are specific. It partially distinguishes from sibling tools like 'audit_animation' but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ensure_layers_present', 'audit_animation'). No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use instructions are provided. The usage scenario is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing effects (e.g., destructive, irreversible), permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence. However, it lacks structure and may be too terse at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter details, prerequisites, and return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the three parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index). Does not explain their roles or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('delete') and the resource ('a cel on a layer/frame'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_frame or copy_cel, but lacks definition of 'cel' and context on layers/frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_cel, delete_frame, or set_cel_opacity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return format but does not mention potential errors (e.g., missing sprite, invalid filename), side effects (none expected), or permission requirements. The tool is read-only but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action, resource, and output. However, it could be slightly expanded to include crucial parameter context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the role of the filename, potential errors, or how the palette is obtained. Given the many sibling tools, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'filename' parameter. It does not explain what the filename refers to (sprite file, path, etc.) or how it relates to the palette. The description provides zero added value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('active sprite palette'), and the output format ('JSON array of hex colors'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like extract_palette or set_palette, and the term 'active sprite' is ambiguous given the required filename parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_palette, set_palette, or list_palette_presets. No context for prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'oscillate using a sine wave' but omits crucial details: whether positions are modified in place, how missing cels are handled (despite a schema parameter), or the effect on existing keyframes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load the most important details (e.g., required parameters, behavioral constraints). Could be more informative without increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is vastly incomplete. It fails to explain complex interactions (e.g., how source_frame_index works, what create_missing_cels does) and leaves critical usage ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter details. Critical parameters like cycles, phase_deg, amplitude_x/y, source_frame_index, and create_missing_cels are completely unexplained, making correct invocation nearly impossible without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (oscillate) and resource (cel positions) with a specific mathematical method (sine wave). This differentiates it from siblings like tween_cel_positions or offset_cel_positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tween_cel_positions_eased, offset_cel_positions). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'copy a sprite to a new file' but does not mention whether the original is modified, what happens if the output file exists without overwrite, or any side effects. The overwrite parameter is listed but its effect is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with a clear list of arguments. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a short sentence about each parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), or any constraints. For a file copy operation, more detail is needed for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists parameter names but provides no additional details beyond the schema (e.g., no format hints for filenames, no explanation of overwrite behavior). The defaults are not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies a sprite to a new Aseprite file. The verb 'copy' and resource 'sprite' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like copy_cel or copy_frame by operating on the entire sprite and creating a new file. However, no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_cel or copy_layers_between_sprites. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral details beyond the basic action. Missing information about side effects, constraints (e.g., file must exist), or whether frames are appended.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two clear sentences. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could include more structured information like argument format without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a minimal tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits context about the resulting frame (e.g., position, duration) and any required file state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that 'filename' is the name of the Aseprite file to modify, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it lacks specificity (e.g., path format, file extension) and does not explain any additional parameters (none provided, but schema has 1 parameter).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a new frame') and the resource ('Aseprite file'), which is distinct from siblings like 'add_frames' (plural) and 'copy_frame'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_frames' for multiple frames, or 'copy_frame'). No context about prerequisites or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that fixes can be applied optionally and returns JSON, but it does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires authentication, or its idempotency. Behavioral traits are minimally conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes necessary format examples without excessive verbosity. However, it could be better structured with bullet points or grouping.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the function of many parameters, return value details, or error handling. Significant gaps remain for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains three parameters (layer_frame_ranges, out_of_range_action, ignore_full_canvas_overlaps) with format examples, leaving 12 parameters undocumented. This is insufficient for a tool with 15 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Normalize animation consistency and optionally apply fixes.' It provides specific examples of parameter formats and mentions that it returns JSON for AI consumption. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_animation or validate_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking and fixing animation consistency, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions copying and appending but does not explain the 'overwrite' parameter or what happens if the target frame already has cels. The phrase 'or append' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating copying and appending actions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., frames must exist), return value, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for source and target frames but does not explain 'filename' or 'overwrite'. The parameter semantics are mostly left to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies all cels from a source frame to a target frame, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'copy_cel' which copies individual cells.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'copy_cel' or 'duplicate_frame'. The description does not provide context for when copying entire frames is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create an empty cel' without mentioning side effects (e.g., overwriting cels), permissions required, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a clear format. It earns a high score but not perfect because the parameter list is somewhat sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain return value, prerequisites (file/layer/frame existence), or error handling. It minimally covers the creation action but omits important usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by listing each parameter and its role (e.g., 'filename: Name of the Aseprite file to modify'). However, it provides minimal detail beyond the schema's names and types, no constraints or formatting rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('create an empty cel') and the scope ('on a layer/frame'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like `clear_cel` or `copy_cel`. However, it assumes familiarity with the term 'cel' and does not explicitly differentiate, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `copy_cel`, `clear_cel`, or `set_cel_opacity`. There is no indication of prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as destructiveness, impact on cels or children, or undo capabilities. The description simply restates the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence and argument list. However, it could be better structured with a clear docstring format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema and two required params, the description should mention implications (e.g., deletion is permanent, affects cels). It only covers basic purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: filename is the file to modify, layer_name is the layer to delete. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it deletes a layer by name, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete other entities like frames, slices, or tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_layer_down or duplicate_layer. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state if the operation is destructive, requires file saving, or what happens on failure. For a drawing tool, key details like whether existing content is overwritten or merged are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a clear one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. The front-loading is effective. However, the docstring format with 'Args' is slightly verbose but acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains each parameter's role. However, it lacks details on return values, side effects, or behavior when layer/frame is missing. For a drawing command, completeness is moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides basic explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'The x coordinate of the center'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, the schema has 0% description coverage, so these are essential. The explanations are minimal and don't cover nuances like color format or coordinate system.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it draws a circle on a specific layer/frame. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'draw_circle', which likely has a similar function without specifying layer/frame, limiting clarity for selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draw_circle' or 'draw_ellipse_at'. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or constraints such as whether the layer must exist (only the parameter 'create_if_missing' hints at it).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification), permissions, error handling, or what happens if the layer does not exist and create_if_missing is false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a structured parameter list. It is concise but could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count (10) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error cases, or the overall workflow, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with types and defaults, which largely duplicates the input schema. It adds no additional semantics like coordinate system, pixel origin, or behavior of optional parameters beyond defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Draw a line on a specific layer/frame' clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_line which operate on the active layer/frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like draw_line or draw_rectangle. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. blend), coordinate system, or color format. The create_if_missing parameter hints at behavior but lacks detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief and includes an args section with parameter names. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical information: return value, coordinate system, color format, and behavior on missing cel. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning: 'pixels: List of pixel data with x/y/color' provides some context, but other parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index) are self-explanatory. Overall, low additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Draw pixels on a specific layer/frame', which specifies the action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like draw_pixels (likely current layer/frame).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_pixels, draw_line_at). The description only lists parameters without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions drawing on a specific layer/frame and optional fill/color, but fails to specify coordinate system, blending behavior, or whether drawing overwrites existing pixels. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, covering all parameters in a single block without superfluous text. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but lacks structural aids like bullet points for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter tool with many sibling drawing tools, the description misses key context: no return value description, no mention of side effects, and no explanation of polygon closure or point ordering. It feels incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing parameter types, defaults, and brief explanations. However, it leaves ambiguity for 'points' (key names not specified) and 'color' (format not described). Given 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (draw) and resource (polygon) on a specific layer/frame. It differentiates from sibling tools like draw_circle or draw_line by the shape type, though it could be more precise about the polygon being closed and defined by points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_line or draw_rectangle. The description does not mention scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states it fills an area on a layer/frame with optional color and layer creation, but doesn't specify side effects (e.g., modifies file in place), return values, or behavior when coordinates are out of bounds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a docstring with a clear first line, then a parameter list. It is reasonably concise but could be more front-loaded and structured for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context: no return value, no error conditions, no explanation of the fill algorithm (flood fill?), and no usage patterns. It is incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing each parameter with its purpose (e.g., 'The path to the Aseprite file'), defaults, and optionality. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fill an area on a specific layer/frame,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'fill_area' by including coordinates (x,y) as parameters, but doesn't explicitly contrast the two.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'fill_area' or other fill/draw tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the rename action without disclosing important behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the file in-place, requires saving, or can fail (e.g., if the layer doesn't exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured as a docstring, but it wastes space by listing parameter names without adding information. While not verbose, it could be more concise or more informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple rename tool with no output schema, the description provides the bare minimum (purpose and parameter names). It lacks completeness in terms of behavioral context, usage scenarios, and any side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely lists parameter names without adding any additional meaning, format guidance, or constraints beyond the structure. The parameter names themselves are self-explanatory, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'layer', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_layer' or 'duplicate_layer' by specifying the rename action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'reorder_layer' or 'set_layer'). No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It fails to disclose what happens if the layer does not exist, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The description is minimal and does not add context about behavior beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured as a docstring with an Args section. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be equally concise while including more useful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or error conditions, nor what happens when the layer is not found. The visible parameter default is true, but this is not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the JSON schema). The description gives one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify'), which adds some meaning beyond the titles, but it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The explanations are minimal and do not clarify details like the format of filename or expected layer name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set layer visibility by name', which is a specific verb (set) and resource (layer visibility) with scope (by name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_layer_blend_mode and set_layer_opacity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the layer must exist, or when not to use it. The sibling list includes many layer-related tools, but no differentiation is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the fact that it sets the palette. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., replacing entire palette), validation, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be improved by adding parameter explanations without significant length increase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to provide context for the 'filename' parameter, any constraints, or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'colors' parameter (list of hex colors) but does not explain the 'filename' parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage and only one of two parameters clarified, the description is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set), the target (active sprite palette), and the method (using a list of hex colors). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_palette' and 'apply_palette_preset' by specifying the input format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided. The agent must infer usage from the bare description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (tween opacity with easing across frames) but omits important details: what opacity range is assumed, what happens if cels are missing (despite a create_missing_cels parameter), what easing functions are available, and the role of source_frame_index. This lack of disclosure makes it harder for an agent to anticipate outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately short for a purpose statement. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, but it earns a 4 for being efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters (6 required), no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), return behavior (likely void or success indicator), or side effects (modifies cel opacity on multiple frames). The description alone does not enable correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that filename, layer_name, start_frame, end_frame, start_opacity, end_opacity are required, nor what valid values for opacity are (e.g., 0-255 vs 0-100). The optional easing, source_frame_index, and create_missing_cels are not mentioned at all. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'tween' and resource 'cel opacity', and explicitly mentions 'with easing' and 'across a frame range'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tween_cel_positions_eased and tween_cel_scale_eased, and makes the animation intent unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for animating opacity across frames, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cel_opacity (immediate) or other tween tools. No when-not examples or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description is minimal—it does not disclose what the guide covers, its format, or that it is a read-only informational tool, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, but it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a single undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse—it omits what the guide contains, acceptable use_case values, and return format, making it incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the only parameter 'use_case' beyond its default 'character'; schema provides no description, and the tool fails to add meaning, leaving valid values ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a concise guide for optimized animation workflows, distinguishing it from sibling action tools like add_frame or draw_pixels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied as a reference for workflows, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided; siblings are all action tools, so it is distinct but lacks direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions drawing a circle but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing content, blends, or creates new layers. The side effects (e.g., modifying the file) are implicit but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter list could be integrated more naturally.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of drawing tools among siblings, the description is minimal. It does not mention the current layer or frame context, nor does it describe the return value or success conditions. The default values for color and fill are provided, but more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'center_x: X coordinate of circle center'), which the input schema lacks (schema coverage 0%). This adds value beyond the schema properties that only have titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool draws a circle on the canvas, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like draw_circle_at, which likely has a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_ellipse_at, draw_rectangle). There is no mention of prerequisites or context such as current layer or frame.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the rectangle is drawn on the current layer, what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates, or if previous pixels are overwritten. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a well-structured docstring with a clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits return value/confirmation, error conditions, and the tool's effect on the sprite state (e.g., which layer/frame is affected).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Width of the rectangle in pixels (must be > 0)') and defaults. This adds moderate value beyond the schema's type definitions, but many parameters lack deeper details (e.g., coordinate system origin).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Draw a rectangle on the canvas') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_circle or draw_line, which have similar but different shapes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_rectangle_at, fill_area). There is no mention of when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'native colour inversion' without detailing side effects, undo behavior, or what exactly happens. It does not disclose if it modifies the sprite in place or returns a new one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat structured with an 'Args:' block but uses informal formatting. It is not overly long but could be more concise and better formatted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters, the description lacks behavioral context, return value info, error handling, and example usage. It covers parameters but is incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains filename required, layer_name default to active layer, frame_index as 1-based, and region scoping when width & height > 0. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs native color inversion on an Aseprite file. It is distinct from siblings like adjust_hsl or adjust_brightness_contrast, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose that the tool can create cels if create_if_missing is true, or that it can copy from another frame via source_frame_index. With no annotations, the description should explain these side effects and requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear front-loaded sentence. The Args section lists parameters but is somewhat verbose; however, it is structured and readable. It could be more concise by integrating parameter details into prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description should explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), and overall effect. It only states 'set a cel's position', leaving many contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides minimal explanations (e.g., 'in pixels', 'starting at 1'), which is baseline but not comprehensive. Key parameters like create_if_missing and source_frame_index are only listed without elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Set a cel's position in a specific layer and frame,' which clearly specifies the verb (Set), resource (cel's position), and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cel, copy_cel, and offset_cel_positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to use set_cel_position vs tween_cel_positions or offset_cel_positions. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the opacity range but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modification in-place, file saving, error handling for missing layers), leaving behavioral traits largely hidden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence plus args list, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, efficient for the limited information provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Missing return value info, error cases, and whether the tool persists changes. Inadequate for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so compensation needed. The description adds minimal meaning: clarifies opacity range (0-255) which is absent from schema, but filename and layer_name descriptions merely echo the field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: 'Set layer opacity by name (0-255)'. The verb 'set' plus resource 'layer opacity' with scope 'by name' distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cel_opacity and set_layer_blend_mode.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cel_opacity. Does not mention when to use or exclude, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it's a 'simple HTTP server' but does not disclose whether it is blocking, returns a URL, allows multiple instances, or how to stop. Missing critical behavioral traits for a network service.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences plus an arg list. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description still lacks key details: how to access the server (URL), that it runs until stopped, concurrency limits, and error handling. This is a network tool and needs more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'directory: Directory to serve' and 'port: Port to bind (default 8000)'. This adds meaning beyond the type and default, clarifying purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a simple HTTP server to preview exported sprites. It is specific about the action and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `stop_preview_server` or other server-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'to preview exported sprites' but provides no guidance on when not to use, prerequisites, lifecycle (e.g., must call stop_preview_server), or alternatives. The sibling `stop_preview_server` exists but is not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool modifies the file but does not mention side effects, undo capabilities, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a clear structure: a short introductory line followed by a parameter list. Every sentence is essential and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only partially complete. It explains parameters but lacks information on return values, error handling, or example usage. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., brightness range, optional region, layer name empty means active). It provides more context than the schema alone, though it could detail the effect scale.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool applies a native brightness/contrast filter to an Aseprite file, which distinguishes it from other adjustment tools like adjust_hsl. However, it does not explicitly explain what makes it 'native' or how it differs from similar tools, so clarity is good but not perfect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like adjust_hsl. It lacks contextual information such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This makes it harder for an agent to select the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions it returns JSON for AI consumption, implying a non-destructive audit. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus format examples) and front-loaded with the purpose. The examples add necessary detail, but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations for most parameters, usage context, and clear behavioral guarantees, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides format examples for overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges, explaining their expected structure. However, the other 8 parameters (end_frame, start_frame, max_overlaps, etc.) are not explained, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool audits animation frames for overlaps and out-of-range layer activity. The verb 'audit' and specific resources 'overlaps' and 'out-of-range' precisely define its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_scene or animation_sanitize.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparisons to related tools, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description 'Delete' implies mutation, but provides no details on permanence, side effects, error conditions, or return value. With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no wasted words, using a clear structure: one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. It earns space, though additional details would be welcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description covers the essential inputs but omits return values and error handling. With no output schema and no annotations, the tool description leaves gaps in understanding the complete behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds context by clarifying 'filename' as the file to modify and 'name' as the slice name, providing value beyond the schema's default titles. However, it lacks specifics like file path requirements or name matching behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'slice', with the identifier 'by name', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_slice or list_slices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., slice must exist), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what happens to layer properties like blend modes or opacity. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are very concise, but the second sentence could be integrated into the first. No wasted words, but the structure could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details on the result (e.g., new layer name, changes to sprite structure). It meets minimum viability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for filename, but the description adds 'Aseprite file to modify', specifying the file type and action. This adds some meaning beyond the parameter name, though limited.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Flatten' and resource 'layers into a single layer', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_layer_down which only merges one layer down, not all layers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_layer_down or other layer operations. No explicit context for usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains parameters but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether it modifies in place, if undo is possible, or what happens to transparent pixels). The description lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose plus a parameter list. It front-loads the main idea. The parameter list is clear but relatively long. Unnecessary repetition is avoided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all input parameters but misses return value, error handling, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the docstring add meaning (e.g., file path, layer name). However, 'mappings' is not fully specified (no format details), and optional parameters are briefly described. The description compensates for the schema gap but could be more precise.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (remap), resource (colors in a layer across a frame range), and method (using explicit mappings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'replace_color' which is for single color replacement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to similar tools like 'replace_color' or 'quantize_to_palette'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It confirms a mutation (setting opacity) but discloses no side effects, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., if cel doesn't exist), or permissions needed. The agent lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a brief sentence and a list of arguments. It is easy to scan and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate parameter descriptions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core action and parameter meanings but lacks context about return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive completeness, but gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies opacity range (0-255) and frame_index starting at 1, but filename and layer_name are not elaborated. This adds some value but not full parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the opacity of a single cel, which is a specific verb-resource combination. The tool name 'set_cel_opacity' is descriptive, and the sibling tools include tween variants, so this tool's purpose is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting opacity on a frame/layer combination, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like tween_cel_opacity_eased or set_cel_position. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the conversion action without disclosing side effects, permanence, authorization needs, or impact on the sprite.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameters, though it could be slightly more structured with separate description and args sections front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the basic function and parameter values. However, it lacks details on return values, file modification behavior, and any prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'mode' parameter by listing the allowed values ('rgb', 'grayscale', or 'indexed'), which is not in the schema. The 'filename' parameter is minimally described as 'Aseprite file to modify'. Overall, it partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'convert' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the sprite's color mode'. It directly states the action, making it easy to understand what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools, there is no guidance on context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions linear interpolation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., file modification, overwriting behavior, or creation of missing cels beyond the create_missing_cels parameter). Lacks detail on what happens to existing cels.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence followed by a parameter list. No redundant information; each element serves a clear purpose. Efficiently communicates the tool's action and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action and all parameters. However, it does not specify return values, error conditions, or when the operation might fail (e.g., missing layer). Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds minimal clarification for each parameter (e.g., 'start_x: Starting X position in pixels'). However, these are largely self-explanatory from parameter names. The descriptions are functional but not enriched beyond basic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Tween cel positions linearly across a frame range', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like offset_cel_positions (relative offset) and tween_cel_positions_eased (eased interpolation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like set_cel_position, offset_cel_positions, and tween_cel_positions_eased are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states basic purpose. It omits details like what happens to existing cels, coordinate system, or prerequisite state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include more helpful information without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. Key parameters like 'source_frame_index' and 'create_missing_cels' are unexplained, making the tool hard to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter details. While parameter names like start_x are somewhat self-explanatory, values like 'easing' type and 'source_frame_index' lack clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Tween cel positions with easing across a frame range' clearly states it tweens cel positions with easing, distinguishing it from the sibling 'tween_cel_positions' which likely lacks easing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidelines are provided. The description implies it should be used for animating cel positions with easing, but does not discuss alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., overwriting, cel creation), error conditions, or performance. Only states purpose and parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose and use case. The Args section is systematic but slightly redundant with schema. No fluff, but could be shorter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core function and parameter meanings, but lacks details on cel creation behavior, error handling, and comparison with similar tools. Adequate for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaningful explanations for density (0.0-1.0, checkerboard example) and color roles, improving agent understanding beyond raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Fill a rectangle with a uniform Bayer-dithered mix of two colors'. Verb + resource + specific technique, but does not differentiate from sibling 'apply_dither_gradient' or 'apply_gradient_rect'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Includes 'Useful for textures (stone, grass) and flat mid-tones between two palette colors' which implies context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the effect (apply gradient) but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing pixels, blends, or requires specific layer types. Missing details on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description includes a full parameter listing in docstring format, which is helpful but somewhat verbose. A more succinct opening sentence would improve front-loading.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Both schema and output schema are lacking descriptions. The description covers all parameters but misses details like coordinate system, color format, and whether the fill replaces or blends. Additional context on expected behavior is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning by listing all parameters and their roles. It explains start/end colors, horizontal orientation, and optional defaults. However, it does not specify color format (e.g., hex, rgba).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies a linear gradient fill to a rectangle, using specific verb 'apply' and resource 'gradient fill to a rectangle'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like draw_rectangle (outline) and fill_area (solid fill) by specifying gradient.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are other fill tools, but the description does not provide criteria for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions replace and create_missing_frames, but lacks details on prerequisites (files must exist, target must have matching layers), error handling, or whether operation is destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus bullet-point parameter list. Every word adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the purpose, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks important context like return value, error cases, and prerequisites (e.g., source and target files must be open). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides brief but functional explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'replace: Overwrite existing cels in target layers'). However, it omits constraints like file path format or layer existence requirements, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies layers by name from a source sprite to a target sprite. The verb 'copy' and resource 'layers' are specific, and the target/source distinction differentiates it from siblings like duplicate_layer (same sprite) or copy_sprite (entire sprite).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_sprite or duplicate_layer. The description lacks exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists parameters and defaults. It does not reveal whether drawing overwrites existing pixels, blends, or has side effects like modifying the file. The 'create_if_missing' parameter hints at behavior, but the outcome when the layer is missing and create_if_missing=false is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary, and the structure is easily scannable. No redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file must be open), and how this tool differs from closely related tools like 'draw_rectangle'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), so the docstring provides full parameter semantics including types, defaults, and brief explanations (e.g., 'x: The x coordinate of the top-left corner'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draw a rectangle on a specific layer/frame,' which conveys the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate between this tool and the sibling 'draw_rectangle,' which likely draws on the current layer/frame, so the distinction is implicit but not explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'draw_rectangle' or 'draw_circle_at.' There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the merge operation but does not explain effects on the bottom layer, deletion of the merged layer, impact on animation frames, or required permissions. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to assess side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the Args list repeats schema information, and the constraint could have been integrated more concisely. Still, it earns a high score for immediate clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the return value or post-merge state (e.g., whether the merged layer is deleted, how the bottom layer changes). For a destructive operation, this incompleteness hinders the agent's understanding of consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'filename' is the 'Aseprite file to modify' and 'layer_name' is the 'Layer to merge down (must not be the bottom layer)'. This clarifies purpose and constraint beyond the schema titles, though format details are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('merge a layer into the layer directly below it') with a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('layer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or delete_layer by specifying the direction and constraint (not bottom layer), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a constraint (layer must not be the bottom layer) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flatten_sprite or reorder_layer. It does not mention scenarios where merging is appropriate or when other tools would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., changing current view), constraints on frame_index range, error handling for invalid inputs, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one-purpose sentence followed by clear parameter definitions. No unnecessary words or information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool, but missing behavioral details like error behavior, state change permanence, and output. With no output schema, description should clarify what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds basic meaning per parameter: filename as file to modify and frame_index as index starting at 1. Lacks constraints like valid range or file state prerequisites.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool sets the active frame by a 1-based index, using clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from frame-manipulation siblings like add_frame, delete_frame, and copy_frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_frame or set_frame_duration. The description provides no context about appropriate scenario or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or behavior when the slice doesn't exist. The tool is a mutation, but no safety or behavioral context is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a parameter list. Every part adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the parameters are but lacks coordinate system details, error handling, or return values. Some gaps remain for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds brief descriptions for all parameters (x, y, name, filename) beyond the schema's type and title, but they are minimal. This provides useful context but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Set a slice's pivot point (relative to the slice origin).' This is a specific verb-resource combination that differentiates from sibling tools like set_slice_center.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The description only states what it does, not the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., modifying the file in place), required file state, or error conditions. The phrase 'usable by game engines' gives context but not behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short, one-sentence purpose plus an Args list. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but aids readability. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-required-param tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains the purpose and parameter meanings but omits return value, success/error handling, and file state changes. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify', 'name: Slice name'). These add meaning beyond the schema's basic titles like 'X', 'Y'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Create a named slice (a rectangular region usable by game engines).' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like delete_slice, list_slices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use mentioned. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Minimal transparency; only states it deletes, no details on side effects, undoability, or behavior on invalid index.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, one sentence plus two parameter descriptions, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks crucial context: no output schema, no error handling info, and no mention of whether the sprite file is saved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions add meaning: filename is an Aseprite file, frame_index starts at 1, which is not evident from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes a frame by index, differentiating it from sibling tools like delete_layer and delete_slice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or error conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose side effects, coordinate system, or behavior when parameters are out of bounds. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Succinct first sentence followed by a well-organized Args list. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides parameter details but lacks behavioral context (e.g., pixel replacement, canvas bounds). With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section thoroughly explains each parameter, including defaults for color and thickness, and the meaning of filename. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draw a line on the canvas,' specifying the verb and resource. Among many drawing sibling tools, this uniquely identifies the action of drawing a line.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_path or draw_rectangle. No prerequisites or contextual cues provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely states it uses a paint bucket tool with coordinates and color, but omits details like whether the fill is destructive, applies to all layers, or how boundaries are determined (e.g., alpha threshold). The default color of black is noted but not the effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the tool's purpose, followed by a compact parameter listing in a consistent format. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains parameters but fails to describe return values, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., whether the file is modified in place). A paint bucket tool typically has flood-fill semantics that are not documented. Compared to the tool's complexity, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides explanations for all 4 parameters: filename as 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify', x and y as coordinates to fill from, and color as a hex code with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields, though more detail on coordinate system (e.g., layer vs canvas) would improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'fills an area with color using the paint bucket tool', specifying the verb (fill), resource (area), and method (paint bucket). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_area_at which likely use a different approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist for similar operations but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the file immediately, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a minimal parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool modifies a layer and has no output schema, the description omits crucial context like return value, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist, layer must be unlocked), and how it interacts with frame_index. It is insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all four parameters and adds value by specifying that frame_index starts at 1 and direction accepts 'horizontal' or 'vertical'. However, detailed semantics (e.g., required format for filename, behavior of direction default) are not provided, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Flip a layer's image horizontally or vertically' clearly states the action (flip), the resource (layer's image), and the possible directions. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like rotate_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for mirroring a layer, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rotate_layer, invert_colors) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose critical behaviors such as whether source cels are deleted, behavior when replace=False (merge?), or permission requirements. Only notes 'replace: Whether to overwrite existing cels' but doesn't explain the alternative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-line summary and parameter list are concise with no redundant text. The parameter list is slightly lengthy but organized. No wasted sentences; earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basic usage but omits behavioral context (e.g., what if source_frame equals a target frame? Does it error on nonexistent layers?). Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides clear 1-based indexing for frames, lists layer_names as a list, and explains the replace parameter. However, it lacks details like allowed values for layer_names or what happens when replace=False.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Copy cels from a source frame to a range of frames for specific layers,' which is a specific verb (copy) and resource (cels across frames for layers). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_cel (single cel) and propagate_frame_to_range (copies frames not cels).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. The description only lists parameters, failing to differentiate from tools like copy_cel or propagate_frame_to_range. No context on when to use replace=True/False.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It fails to disclose whether pixels overwrite or blend, what happens with out-of-bounds coordinates, or if any prerequisites exist. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clean Args list. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers parameter usage adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., layer interaction, result feedback) that would help an agent use it correctly in complex workflows.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description clearly documents both parameters, including the expected structure for pixels (x, y, color with hex format). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it draws pixels on a canvas with specified colors, using a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like draw_circle or draw_line by specifying it draws individual pixels from a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_pixels_at or draw_line. Missing context on when it's appropriate to use pixel-level drawing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the original file is modified, overwriting behavior, or error handling. It only mentions the export function and allowed formats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers parameters adequately for a simple export, it lacks output format details, usage context, and behavioral notes. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally complete but could be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: filename, output_filename, and format (with default and examples). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports an Aseprite file to another format using the verb 'Export'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_frame, export_layers, and export_spritesheet by targeting the entire sprite file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other export tools (e.g., export_frame, export_layers). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like file overwriting behavior, required permissions, or side effects. While parameter meanings are detailed, the actual operation (e.g., does it overwrite existing file?) is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear initial sentence followed by a list of parameter descriptions. It is concise and each line adds value, though some default values are repeated from the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The parameter details are thorough, but the description lacks explanation of the output format (e.g., JSON structure), behavior on existing files, and the exact effect of flags like list_tags. Given no output schema, more context on the result would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, default behavior, and allowed values (e.g., sheet_type options, data_format options, scale/padding units). This adds essential context beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export frames as a sprite sheet' with optional JSON data file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_frame (single frame) and export_sprite (whole sprite) by the output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like export_frame or export_layers. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, when to prefer spritesheet export, or when the JSON data file is beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the operation is mutable, destructive, requires a saved file, or any error conditions. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one line of purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters with clear explanation. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters, the description covers the action and parameter values. However, it lacks return value, error conditions, and any behavioral context like file state requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds value beyond the input schema by listing the valid enum values for mode. Since schema coverage is 0%, this explicit enumeration is helpful. However, no additional details are given for filename or layer_name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a layer's blend mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_layer_opacity or set_layer_visibility by specifying the exact property modified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The description only states what it does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, side effects (e.g., auto-saving), or what happens if the file is not found. The description focuses only on the action and parameters, leaving the agent with limited understanding of runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single purpose sentence followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is informative and earns its place. No redundant or extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter meanings adequately. It could optionally mention failure conditions (e.g., file not found, layer name already exists), but this is not strictly necessary for a basic add operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: filename (file to modify), layer_name (name of new layer), and group (optional path for placement). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles, which are generic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a new layer' and the resource 'to the Aseprite file'. It uses a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_layer, duplicate_layer, or add_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_group or create_tilemap_layer. It lacks explicit context for when not to use it or under what conditions it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the file is saved immediately), prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist unless create_if_missing), error handling, or whether drawing is additive or replaces existing content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a docstring with a brief introductory line and a parameter list. It is efficient, with no redundant sentences, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics adequately but misses behavioral context (e.g., what happens on invalid input, how the file is modified). It is partially complete but has notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains each parameter with clear, concise descriptions (e.g., 'Hex color code', 'Horizontal radius in pixels'). It adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and default values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (draw) and the resource (ellipse on a layer/frame), distinguishing it from sibling tools like draw_circle and draw_rectangle. The verb and noun are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., draw_ellipse without '_at'). The description implies usage from context, but lacks when-not or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects like file modification, undoability, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., file existence). The description is too minimal for behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every piece of information serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics well but lacks details about return values, error states, or behavioral context. Given no output schema and 7 parameters, it is adequate but not comprehensive. It would benefit from mentioning success indicators or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'filename: The path to the Aseprite file'), which the schema lacks (0% coverage). This adds critical context beyond types and defaults, making it highly informative for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool draws a path using a polyline on a specific layer/frame. The verb 'draw' combined with 'path' and details about polyline make the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_line, draw_rectangle, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for simpler shapes. Sibling tools like draw_line, draw_polygon could be alternatives but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Read all pixel colors'), which implies non-destructiveness, but does not detail permissions, file existence requirements, or coordinate system origin. The return format is covered, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the main purpose. It is reasonably concise without extraneous content, though the return format repetition could be trimmed slightly. Overall efficient and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return format (JSON array of pixel objects) and all parameters, which is good for a read tool. However, it omits context like coordinate origin, error handling, file must exist, and behavior when layer is missing. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), additional contextual details would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Top-left x coordinate'), adding some meaning beyond parameter names. However, it lacks constraints like bounds, valid file types, or input validation rules, leaving gaps in full understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read all pixel colors in a rectangular region,' specifying the verb (read) and resource (pixel colors in a region). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pixel_color (single pixel) and get_composite_rect (composite), so purpose is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading region pixel data via the Args list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pixel_color for single pixel). No when-not scenarios are mentioned, leaving guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes the action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as in-place modification, destruttiva nature, prerequisites (cel existence), return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence action statement followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficient in its layout. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core action and parameters but lacks behavioral details, error handling, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all six parameters: filename, layer_name, start_frame (1-based), end_frame (inclusive), dx, dy. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it lacks constraints like valid ranges or that dx/dy can be negative.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool offsets cel positions by a delta across a frame range. The verb 'offset' is specific, and the resource 'cel positions' is explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_cel_position (absolute) and tween_cel_positions (animated).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_cel_position or tween_cel_positions. Usage is implied for shifting cels by a constant delta, but no guidance on exclusions or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and leaves the agent uninformed about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple transformation tool, the description covers the necessary input parameters adequately. However, without an output schema or behavioral details, the agent may not know what to expect as a result. Slightly incomplete but acceptable given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but useful descriptions for each parameter: 'frame_index starting at 1', 'angle: 90, 180, or 270 (clockwise)'. This adds constraints and clarifies the format, adding value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Rotate a layer's image 90, 180, or 270 degrees clockwise.' It specifies a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'flip_layer' which performs a different transformation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where rotation is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Indicates it modifies an Aseprite file (mutation), but without annotations the description should state if changes are reversible, require saving, or have side effects. Adequate for a straightforward operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Brief and structured as an args list. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more informative but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage. Description provides basic info but lacks constraints (e.g., valid duration range, error handling). Sufficient for simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does: filename, frame_index (starting at 1), duration_ms (milliseconds). Adds meaning beyond type and required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool sets the duration of a frame in milliseconds, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'set_frame_duration_all' which targets all frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_frame_duration_all' or 'set_frame'). Does not mention prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences plus argument bullets with no wasted words. Perfectly sized for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema. Could mention error conditions or that it modifies the file, but the core action is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'name of the Aseprite file' for filename and 'duration in milliseconds' for duration_ms, compensating for 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the duration for all frames in milliseconds, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'set_frame_duration' which targets a specific frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_frame_duration'. Does not mention context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose important behaviors such as whether the tool modifies the file in place, requires the slice to exist, or what happens if invalid values are given. The description only states the what, not the how or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and structured with a brief intro followed by an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the argument list could be more integrated. No unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks usage context such as preconditions (e.g., slice must exist), side effects, return value, or error handling. It mentions '9-patch scaling' but does not elaborate on how the center rectangle affects scaling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining each parameter in the 'Args' section. It provides context like 'relative to the slice' for x and y, and defines width and height. However, it lacks constraints like non-negative values or default behaviors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (set a slice's 9-patch center rectangle) and the resource (slice). It explains the purpose for 9-patch scaling in game engines, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_slice_pivot and create_slice.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when setting the 9-patch center, but lacks guidance on preconditions or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without discussing side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites like the server running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence and an argument list. Every part adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by noting that the server must be running on that port, but overall it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains the 'port' parameter and its default value, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool stops a preview HTTP server for a specific port. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'start_preview_server' tool by providing the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly relates to starting a server but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'all opaque pixels' but does not disclose that the operation is likely destructive (modifies the file in-place) or any required permissions. Lacks detail on side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, followed by use-case examples, then a parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list could be more integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks preconditions (file exists, layer exists) and return behavior. It adequately covers parameters and use cases but misses completeness for a modification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining all 6 parameters with ranges (e.g., hue_shift: -360 to 360). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adjusts hue, saturation, and lightness of opaque pixels in a cel. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling 'adjust_hsl_native'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: creating palette-swapped variants, shading, darkening for shadows, hue-shifting for night scenes. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions 'discarding content outside it', indicating destructive behavior. However, lacks details on irreversibility, what happens to other layers, or whether it modifies the file in-place. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: one sentence explaining purpose followed by a minimal Args list. No redundant or unnecessary text. Front-loaded with key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose and parameters, but missing details like return value (if any), error conditions, or behavior edge cases (e.g., invalid rectangle). For a straightforward tool with no output schema or annotations, slightly more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates with an Args section listing each parameter and a brief description (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify'). These add basic meaning beyond the schema titles, though they are terse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Crop the canvas to the given rectangle, discarding content outside it', defining the verb (crop), resource (canvas), and effect (discard outside). Distinguishes from siblings like resize_canvas and create_canvas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that resize_canvas might be preferred for non-destructive resizing. The description assumes the user already knows when to crop.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a destructive action ('Delete') but provides no additional behavioral details such as reversibility, permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, front-loading the core action and listing parameters in a clean format. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and parameters. No additional context is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains both parameters: filename is the Aseprite file, name is the tag name. However, schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate with more detail (e.g., file path format). It is adequate but not thorough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('delete') and the resource ('animation tag'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'set_tag' which creates or updates tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_tag). A simple delete operation may not need extensive guidance, but the description lacks any context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (duplicate and append) and parameter details (1-based, inclusive, default). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like frame shifting or whether original frames are preserved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single action sentence followed by a clean Args list. Each parameter is explained in one line. No redundant information, but the structure could be slightly improved by separating the overview from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks details about return value or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that start_frame is 1-based, end_frame is inclusive, and times has a default of 1. The schema only provides types and titles, so the description provides necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Duplicate' and the resource 'frame range', specifying the action 'append copies to the end'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'copy_frame' (single frame) and 'duplicate_layer' (layer-level).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for duplicating a range of frames, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like 'copy_frame' or 'add_frames'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It fails to mention that the tool modifies the file destructively, that it sets alpha to 0, or any side effects (e.g., impact on other layers). The return behavior or confirmation is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose then a clean argument list. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (destructive nature, in-place modification, return value). It is minimally complete for usage but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter meanings. It explains filename, layer_name, frame_index (starting at 1), color (hex format with example), and tolerance (range 0-255, default 0). This is clear and sufficient, though it could clarify color format restrictions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Make all pixels of a given color transparent (like a magic eraser).' It specifies the action (make transparent) and resource (pixels of a given color), distinguishing it from siblings like replace_color or erase_region.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an analogy ('like a magic eraser') implying usage, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. Sibling tools with similar functions (e.g., replace_color) are not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the parameters (layer, frame) but does not mention error handling for out-of-bounds coordinates or the exact return format (though RGBA is implied). It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear first sentence and an organized Args list. It efficiently conveys the purpose and parameter semantics without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameters are well explained, the return value is only implied ('RGBA color') and not explicitly stated. No output schema exists, so the description should specify the format of the returned color.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful details for all parameters, e.g., 'Layer to read from (uses active layer when empty)' and 'Frame index starting at 1.' This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read the RGBA color of a single pixel,' which is a specific verb+resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pixels_rect' or 'get_composite_pixel' that read multiple pixels or composite values.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for reading pixel data (e.g., get_composite_pixel, get_pixels_rect), explicit usage context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation (returning info), but does not mention error handling, file existence prerequisites, or permission needs. The description is adequate for a simple read but lacks deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for parameter. Every word is valuable, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description lists the fields returned but does not specify the JSON structure or format in detail. It is adequate for an agent to understand the output, but more detail on the exact schema would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'filename' has a clear description ('Name of the Aseprite file to inspect') that adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Since schema coverage is 0%, the tool description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns sprite info as a JSON string with specific fields (size, color mode, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily for creation or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implicitly a read-only informational tool, the description does not direct the agent on when to choose it over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the overwrite behavior via the parameter but does not explicitly state that the tool modifies the file in-place or mention other side effects. The lack of annotations limits transparency, but the description gives basic behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single-line summary followed by a clean docstring listing each parameter. No redundant information; every sentence is functional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values or effects, but it does not. The description covers the basic action and parameters, but lacks detail on edge cases like when overwrite=False and cels exist. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, it is minimally adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The docstring provides concise explanations for all five parameters, including 1-based indexing for frames and the default for overwrite. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Copy all layers) and the resource (from a source frame to a range of frames). It precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like copy_frame and propagate_cels by specifying the destination as a range of frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exceptions, or context that would help an AI agent choose this tool over existing siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'preserving alpha' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the file in place, or any side effects like affecting other layers or frames.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence purpose followed by a bullet-list of parameter descriptions. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 6 parameters, the description adequately explains parameters and purpose. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the tool modifies the file, what happens if the color is not found, or any prerequisites).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's args section provides clear explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Hex color to replace, e.g. "#FF0000"'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb 'Replace' and specific resource 'color in a cel, preserving alpha'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'erase_color' (removes color) and 'remap_colors_in_cel_range' (operates on a range).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when replacing a specific color in a cel while preserving alpha, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description lacks details on scaling behavior (e.g., interpolation, aspect ratio, handling of pixels outside new bounds), which is critical for understanding side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one line for purpose, then a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for basic invocation, but missing return value info and edge-case behavior (e.g., scaling when new dimensions are smaller/larger, scaling algorithm). No output schema to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds units ('in pixels') and clarifies each parameter beyond the schema, which had no descriptions. With 0% schema coverage, this compensates well but doesn't explain constraints like min/max.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Scale' and resource 'canvas and all its content to new dimensions', distinguishing it from sibling 'crop_canvas' which crops without scaling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for resizing canvas with content scaling, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no alternatives like 'crop_canvas' mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the gradient direction and parameter effects but does not disclose critical behaviors like overwriting existing pixels or whether the tool is destructive. The algorithm detail is useful, but safety aspects are lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a concise purpose statement followed by a well-formatted Args list. It front-loads key information without redundancy. A slight improvement could be removing the empty line between paragraphs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core algorithm and parameter roles but omits edge cases like file existence checks, return value (e.g., success indicator), and what happens if the cel already exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by listing all 11 parameters with meaningful one-liners (e.g., 'Hex color at the start of the gradient'). This adds significant value beyond the schema's property titles, though some format details (e.g., hex prefix) are implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fills a rectangle with a two-color gradient using Bayer 4x4 ordered dithering, a specific technique for pixel art. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_gradient_rect (smooth gradient) and apply_dither_pattern (pattern dither).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pixel-art dithering ('classic pixel-art way') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context is clear but not directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it creates a new canvas but does not discuss overwrite behavior if the file exists, error handling for invalid dimensions, or side effects like file system writes. The return value is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one introductory sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. No extraneous information, and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool, the basics are covered, but it lacks details on what happens on success (e.g., is the canvas opened in the UI?), error cases, and file overwrite policy. With no output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema properties have no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: width and height are pixels, filename defaults to 'canvas.aseprite'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it creates a new Aseprite canvas with specified dimensions. The verb 'Create' and resource 'canvas' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'crop_canvas' or 'resize_canvas' which modify existing canvases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates creation of a new canvas, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like importing an image or modifying an existing canvas. No conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses tile_index=0 restriction and automatic tile appending. However, it omits side effects (e.g., file persistence, undo behavior, error states like missing layer). The return value is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a clear Args list, front-loaded with the key behavior. No wasted sentences, though could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and many siblings, the description covers the core functionality well but misses details like error handling, file saving behavior, and whether multiple pixel entries affect performance. Adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% but the description adds structured detail: pixels is a list of {x, y, color} objects, tile_index has reserved values. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it draws pixels onto a tile within a tilemap layer's tileset. It specifies tile-local coordinates and explains the special meaning of tile_index (0 reserved, appending). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_pixels (canvas-level) and set_tiles (tile data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains mechanics (coordinates, tile_index behavior) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_pixels or set_tiles. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites. The context is implied but not formal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers basic behavior: exports each layer, creates output directory if missing, and includes a flag for hidden layers. However, it does not mention overwriting behavior, file conflicts, or whether the original file is modified. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the naming convention and directory behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling, overwrite policy), but they are not critical for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter (filename, output_directory, include_hidden) with meaning beyond the schema, including the default and the behavior of directory creation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: exporting each layer as its own PNG file with a specific naming pattern. It uses a specific verb (export) and resource (layers), and the naming convention distinguishes it from sibling export tools like export_frame, export_sprite, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not how it compares to other export tools or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals it is a read operation (returns JSON) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or handle error cases like missing layers. The detail about excluding empty tile 0 adds value, but overall behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: a single opening sentence followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description specifies the returned JSON fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file must contain a tilemap layer), or behavior when the given layer is not a tilemap, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by briefly explaining both parameters. 'filename: Aseprite file to read' and 'layer_name: Tilemap layer to inspect' add meaning but are still somewhat minimal. No additional constraints or formats are provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves tilemap layer info including tile size, tile count, and map dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_ tools by focusing specifically on tilemap layers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting tilemap metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives nor when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It explains the 1-based position indexing (bottom layer=1) but doesn't disclose side effects like shifting of other layers, file saving requirements, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by Args section. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, required parameters, and position semantics. Could mention layer range validation or effects on other layers, but it's sufficient for a basic reorder operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description clearly explains all three parameters (filename, layer_name, position) including the semantics of position as 1-based bottom. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Move', resource 'layer', and specifies 'to a new position in the layer stack'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_layer, delete_layer, rename_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the primary behavior (setting active layer) and the optional creation behavior, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or installation context. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus three parameter lines with no fluff. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameters. Missing details like return value or error behavior, but adequate for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides clear, concise explanations for all three parameters, effectively compensating for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the active layer by name, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_layer and rename_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that add_layer creates a new layer or rename_layer renames, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: sets the sprite grid to tile size, adds a tilemap layer, and notes that tile index 0 is always empty. This provides valuable transparency for an AI agent. However, it does not mention error conditions or side effects (e.g., what happens if the layer name already exists).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two clear sentences plus an Args list. The key information is front-loaded. The Args list is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it does not waste much space. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's essential purpose and behavior. It references a sibling tool (draw_on_tile) for context. However, it does not discuss error conditions, valid ranges for tile dimensions, or the tool's interaction with the sprite file state. Still, it is fairly complete for a creation tool of moderate complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description's Args section lists parameters but does not explain them beyond their names. However, the input schema provides titles for each parameter, and the description mentions that tile_width and tile_height set the sprite grid, adding some meaning. Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in description), but the parameter names are self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Create a tilemap layer with its own tileset.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_layer (regular layer) and draw_on_tile (modifying existing tiles). The additional details about setting the sprite grid and tile index 0 being empty further clarify the tool's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests that this tool is for creating a tilemap layer and that draw_on_tile should be used for adding non-empty tiles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like add_layer or add_group, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open) or situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation (adds frames) and optional duration, but does not detail side effects, file modification behavior, or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-line description plus argument list is efficient and front-loaded; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and key constraints; lacks mention of frame insertion position but is otherwise adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It clarifies each parameter's role and adds unit context for duration_ms (milliseconds), which is beyond schema specs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool adds multiple frames to a sprite and optionally sets duration, distinguishing it from sibling 'add_frame' which adds a single frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_frame' or other frame manipulation tools; usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the effect (makes transparent) and coordinate system, but does not mention edge cases, undo behavior, or potential side effects. Without annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary, a coordinate note, and a clean list of parameters. No unnecessary information, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 7 required params and no output schema, the description covers the functionality and parameter semantics well. Minor gap: no mention of handling dimensions exceeding canvas bounds.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides a dedicated 'Args:' section explaining each parameter (filename, layer_name, frame_index, x, y, width, height), adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool erases (makes transparent) a rectangular region of pixels, specifying coordinates are sprite-global. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_cel or draw_rectangle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when erasing a rectangular region, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., clear_cel for full cel erasure) or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the layer is created if it does not exist and notes the RGB mode preference. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., file not found), permissions required, or the fact that it modifies the sprite file. The disclosed behaviors are useful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a single sentence stating the purpose, two brief notes about utility and behavior, and a clean parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' section could be slightly more compact if integrated with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and one behavioral note (layer creation). It lacks information about return values (if any), error handling, and what happens to existing layer content. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section provides essential meaning. It explains each parameter's role, including defaults for x, y, and frame_index (starting at 1). The descriptions are clear and cover all parameters. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Import an image file into a layer' and specifies the resource (sprite layer). It differentiates from siblings like 'add_layer' (which adds an empty layer) by focusing on importing an existing image. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use it ('bringing in reference images or composing pre-made parts') and notes a condition ('Works best when the sprite is in RGB color mode'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'add_layer' for empty layers. This is a minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that source becomes transparent, pixels outside canvas are discarded, and transparent source does not overwrite destination. Missing details on undo or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: one-sentence summary, bullet-point behaviors, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers core behavior well (source/destination, transparency handling). Could mention undo capability or partial out-of-canvas behavior, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The docstring clarifies each parameter (e.g., 'New left edge for the region' for dest_x), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, lacks ranges, defaults, or format specifics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Cut a rectangular region of pixels and paste it at a new position,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_region (copy without cutting) and draw_rectangle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides spatial behavior (sprite-global coordinates, transparent source area, out-of-bounds discard) but does not explicitly guide when to use move vs. alternatives like copy or cut. No direct sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly states the export behavior and format determination, but does not mention side effects like file overwriting, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. The behavior is adequately disclosed but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one line of summary followed by a clear args list. No unnecessary words. Structured for quick parsing by AI agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or file path). It also lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open) and error conditions. However, for a simple export tool, it covers the essential input semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters: filename (Aseprite file), tag_name (animation tag), output_filename (output path with format indicated by extension), scale (integer default 1). This goes beyond what schema types/titles provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export the frames of an animation tag as a GIF or PNG sequence', which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_frame' (single frame) and 'export_sprite' (full sprite) by focusing on animation tags.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for exporting animation tags into GIF or PNG, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'export_sprite' or 'export_spritesheet'. However, the context of the tool name and description makes the usage context clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that it reads visible RGBA from the flattened composite of all layers, and clarifies it reads composited pixels, not a single cel. It does not explicitly state it's read-only but implies no side effects. The return format is mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a title line, a comparison sentence, an Args section with bullet points, and a Returns line. It is relatively concise but includes all necessary information. A slight improvement could be removing 'the rectangular counterpart...' redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, it explains the return format. It covers input parameters adequately. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but for a read-only tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters and provides some context (e.g., 'Top-left x (sprite-global)' for x, y, and default for frame_index). However, it does not explain the coordinate system fully or constraints like maximum region size.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads visible RGBA over a rectangle from the flattened composite of all layers, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_composite_pixel by noting it reads a rectangular region rather than a single pixel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description positions it as the rectangular counterpart of get_composite_pixel, providing clear context for when to use which. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond that one sibling comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the return format as a JSON array of objects with specified fields. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only list operation. With no annotations, the description sufficiently covers behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description specifies the return format, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain the 'filename' parameter, leaving a minor gap for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'filename' parameter beyond the schema. It does not clarify what filename refers to (e.g., a sprite file path) or how it is used. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool lists all slices with bounds, 9-patch centers, and pivots. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_slice, delete_slice, and set_slice_center/pivot, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving slice information, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that tile_index 0 clears the cell and frame_index starts at 1, but doesn't address write implication, required permissions, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused paragraph with a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, description covers action and parameters well. Could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., tilemap layer must exist) and behavior for invalid indices. Currently, it's mostly sufficient for a standard tile placement tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully defines each parameter: filename as file to modify, layer_name as tilemap layer, frame_index as starting at 1, and tiles as list of col/row/tile_index with special meaning of 0. This adds essential meaning beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Place tiles' and the resource 'tilemap layer', specifying grid-based placement. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_on_tile or create_tilemap_layer by focusing on batch tile placement via grid coordinates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch tile placement but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as draw_on_tile or clear_cel. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It indicates the operation modifies the file ('Aseprite file to modify'), explains optional region scoping (width>0 & height>0), and parameter defaults. Lacks explicit statement about in-place modification but is clear enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise intro followed by structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, though the description could be more front-loaded with the verb. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters with sufficient context, including reference to list_convolution_matrices for matrix names. Does not mention output (no output schema), but for an in-place modification tool this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for all 8 parameters: filename (file to modify), matrix (built-in name), layer_name (default active), frame_index (1-based), region parameters with condition. Adds significant value beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it is a 'Native convolution filter' for blur, sharpen, edge, emboss, etc. Differentiates from sibling filters like adjust_brightness_contrast by focusing on convolution matrices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternative filters. Mentions that matrix names come from list_convolution_matrices, but no when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (PNG export, optional scaling) and parameter effects. However, it does not specify whether the output file overwrites existing files, permissions needed, or exact side effects. It adds some value beyond minimal, but could be more detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear single-sentence summary, then provides a practical use case, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and usage scenario. It could mention overwrite behavior or return value confirmation, but the current information suffices for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides all parameter semantics. It defines each parameter in the Args list: filename, frame_index, output_filename, scale. For scale, it adds 'Integer nearest-neighbor scale factor (default 1)', which clarifies the type and default. This adds meaning beyond the schema property titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export a single frame as a PNG, optionally scaled up.' It specifies the action (export), resource (single frame), format (PNG), and optional scaling. It distinguishes from sibling tools like export_sprite, export_spritesheet, and export_tag which handle different export scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for visual feedback while drawing: export at scale 8-10 and open the PNG to inspect the result, then keep iterating.' It gives a concrete scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description is straightforward. It does not disclose potential side effects like name conflicts or overwriting behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two clear paragraphs, front-loading the main action and then detailing parameters efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage pattern, and parameter semantics completely. No output schema is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds meaningful explanations for each parameter, including the default behavior of parent_group. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a new, empty group layer' and explains how it integrates with add_layer and duplicate_layer, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add regular layers or duplicate layers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly guides usage with add_layer/duplicate_layer and explains the parent_group parameter for nesting. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: parameter ranges (hue -180..180, etc.), that layer_name defaults to active layer, frame_index is 1-based, and region parameters only apply when width>0 and height>0. It does not explicitly state whether the modification is in-place or if a new layer is created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-line purpose followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The format is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter details, and sibling distinction. It lacks explicit mention of return value or side effects (e.g., whether the file is saved), but is largely sufficient for a filter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed semantics for all 10 parameters: ranges, defaults, and conditions (e.g., region scoping). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type/default information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Native Hue/Saturation/Lightness filter' and distinguishes from the sibling 'adjust_hsl' by noting 'engine-quality'. The verb 'filter' and the resource 'HSL' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'engine-quality vs adjust_hsl', hinting at a qualitative difference, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or specific usage contexts are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the copy inherits opacity and blend mode, and explains placement behavior. It also covers the naming default. However, it does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a non-destructive duplicate, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a brief summary followed by one behavioral sentence and a clear parameter listing. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention return values. However, it thoroughly covers input parameters and behavioral details. For a duplicate operation, the missing return description is a minor gap, but overall completeness is high given the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: filename, layer_name with path syntax, new_name with default, and group with placement behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Duplicate a layer with all its cels across every frame.' It specifies the verb (duplicate), resource (layer), and scope (all cels across every frame), distinguishing it from sibling tools like copy_cel or delete_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by describing default behavior and optional grouping, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_layer or when not to use it. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (list) with no side effects. However, it could mention that it is safe and idempotent. The description is adequate but not overly detailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first states the action and resource, the second explains the return format. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed (built-in retro palette presets) and what is returned (mapping of name to hex colors). No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (List) and resource (built-in retro palette presets). It specifies that it returns colors, and the tool name 'list_palette_presets' matches. Sibling tools like apply_palette_preset, get_palette, and set_palette have different purposes, so this tool is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does. Given sibling tools that also deal with palettes (apply_palette_preset, get_palette), the agent might benefit from hints about when to list presets vs. get the current palette, but none are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes key behavioral traits: adds outline, fills adjacent transparent pixels, effect of include_diagonals. Lacks explicit mention of destructiveness (modifies file in place), but behavior is clear. No annotation contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a summary, behavior explanation, and Args list. Each sentence adds value; no wasted words. Concise yet informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers behavior and parameters. No output schema, but return value is implicit (modification). Could mention that it modifies the sprite in place, but sufficient for a modification tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: filename, layer_name, frame_index, color (default black), include_diagonals (default False, thickens outline). Adds meaning beyond schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it adds a 1px outline around opaque pixels of a cel, using specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'outline_native' by describing the algorithm (outline around opaque pixels, filling adjacent transparent pixels).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage with 'Great for making sprites read clearly against any background', but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to 'outline_native'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions it is a 'Native Aseprite Outline' and modifies the file, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the operation is undoable, if it affects other layers, or required permissions). Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a summary sentence, quality comparison, best-use note, and a clear parameter list. No redundant information; all sentences earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage hint, and parameter meanings. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but for a file-modification tool this is acceptable. Almost complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter list in the description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema. Each parameter is explained (e.g., 'color: outline colour as #RRGGBB', 'place: "outside" or "inside"'), covering all 6 parameters. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Native Aseprite Outline around opaque pixels (app.command.Outline).' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'outline_cel' by noting higher quality and additional options (inside/outside placement + circle/square brush), making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage guidance by stating 'Works best on a full-canvas cel' and comparing to outline_cel. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or describe prerequisites (e.g., layer must have opaque pixels). Still clear enough for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses mutation of sprite's palette via explicit note. Describes that it writes and returns palette. With no annotations, description carries burden and adequately covers side effects and mode requirement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with bold purpose, contrast, note, and args list. Front-loaded. Slightly verbose due to repeated parameter listing, but all content earns its place given no schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, mutation, mode, parameter semantics, and return format. Lacks error conditions or edge cases, but given tool complexity, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, description provides full parameter explanations: filename as file to modify, max_colors as size cap with range and adaptive behavior, with_alpha for alpha inclusion. Adds meaning beyond schema names/types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Build/extract' and resource 'palette from sprite'. Directly contrasts with sibling 'quantize_to_palette', distinguishing it as true palette extraction vs nearest-snap. Note about mutation and RGB mode adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly differentiates from sibling tool via contrast. States prerequisite (RGB mode). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative scenarios, but the contrast implies usage for optimal palette extraction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'flattens the sprite (non-destructively)' and histograms the frame, providing key behavioral insight. However, it does not address permissions or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a clear structure: brief purpose sentence, use case hint, parameter list, and return info. It could be slightly tighter but is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return format ('JSON with unique color count, opaque pixel count, and the top colors with usage counts'). All parameters are documented, and the output is described, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a full 'Args' section explaining each parameter's meaning (filename, frame_index, top). This adds value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report the colors used in a frame and how often each appears.' It also provides a specific use case ('check palette discipline'), making it distinct from related siblings like get_pixel_color or extract_palette.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description suggests when to use the tool ('Use to check palette discipline'), but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternatives from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly states it is a read operation (no side effects) and explains the return value including that tile_index 0 means empty. With no annotations, it adequately discloses behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: summary line, args list, returns line. No extraneous words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description covers all necessary information: input details and output format. It is fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Each of the 5 parameters is described with its purpose, type, and constraints (e.g., frame_index starting at 1, col/row 0-based), adding significant value beyond the bare schema which has 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads which tile is at a grid position (specific verb and resource). It is distinct from siblings like set_tiles or draw_on_tile as a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing to query a tile at a position but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tilemap_info or draw_on_tile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description clearly states the tool is a listing operation returning a JSON array of names. No hidden behaviors or side effects are indicated, which is appropriate for a simple read-only tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: one for purpose and one for return value. No extraneous information, highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list. The description provides the return type (JSON array) and the content (matrix resource names). It is sufficient for this minimal tool, though additional detail about the format of names could be included.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add any parameter information, which is acceptable as baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists 'built-in convolution-matrix names' and explicitly links them to 'apply_convolution'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the exact resource type and its usage context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before apply_convolution by stating the matrices are 'usable with' it. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the operation is non-destructive and flattens the sprite, which is a behavioral insight. No contradictions. Could mention performance aspects, but still clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: a one-line summary, a context sentence, then structured Args and Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers input parameters and return format comprehensively. The usage context and behavioral notes make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining frame_a and frame_b indices starting at 1, and the purpose of filename. The Args section in the docstring provides meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'compare' and resource 'two frames', and explains the non-destructive flattening and pixel-by-pixel diffing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pixel_color or get_sprite_info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use while animating to confirm...' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states three key behaviors: coordinates are sprite-global, transparent source pixels do not overwrite, and the destination cel is created when missing. This adds significant context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, followed by important behavioral notes and a parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behaviors thoroughly. However, it does not mention return values (e.g., success/failure feedback) or error conditions. This is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain each parameter. It does so comprehensively in the 'Args' section, providing clear semantics for all 11 parameters, including default behaviors for optional ones. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool copies a rectangular region of pixels to another position, layer, or frame. It uses a specific verb ('copy') and resource ('region'), and 'Coordinates are sprite-global' adds precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'move_region' or 'copy_cel'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions behaviors like 'transparent source pixels do not overwrite' but lacks guidance on when not to use (e.g., for moving instead of copying). No alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the process: walks cels, replaces opaque pixels using RGB distance. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is honest but omits edge cases like transparent pixels or empty palette.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two paragraphs: first states purpose, second provides usage context and parameter details. No wasted words, well-structured, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and parameter semantics. Missing return value or error handling, but still adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaning: explains filename required, layer_name empty = all layers, start_frame default 1, end_frame default 0 = last frame. Fully compensates for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Snap every pixel to the nearest color in the sprite's palette,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_palette_preset by noting it should be run after to make art conform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to run after apply_palette_preset or set_palette, providing clear context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the given guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces a PNG, uses ghosting, and that frame_index starts at 1. It could have added details about error handling, or whether it modifies the file, but the description covers the core behavior and output format adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-sentence summary, a short paragraph of context, and a well-formatted parameter list. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or filler. It is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, parameter details, and expected output (PNG file saved to output_filename). It does not explicitly describe the return value, but since the tool likely saves a file, the omission is minor. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters with concise explanations, including defaults and ranges (e.g., ghost_opacity 0-255, scale integer, before/after default 1). This fully documents each parameter's meaning and typical values, exceeding the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Render a frame with neighboring frames as translucent onion-skin ghosts.' It uses a specific verb (Render) and resource (frame with ghosts), and distinguishes from siblings like set_onion_skin (which sets UI settings) and export_frame (which exports a single frame). The tool's purpose is immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'Essential for checking motion continuity while animating', which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools (e.g., set_onion_skin for interactive onion skinning). This omission slightly reduces guidance, but the use case is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It warns that changes are not saved automatically, print() is the only way to return data, coordinates are cel-local, and includes a security warning about unrestricted code execution. Comprehensive disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to use, essentials, warning, and args. Front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers essential behaviors, safety, and return mechanism (print). Lacks explicit error handling or return value explanation, but the tool's nature (arbitrary code) makes full enumeration impractical. Adequate given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It lists both script and filename with brief explanations, adding essential meaning beyond the schema. Could include more detail on script format or file types but sufficient for basic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Execute arbitrary Aseprite Lua code in batch mode (escape hatch)' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as an escape hatch when no dedicated tool covers the need.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use this when no dedicated tool covers what you need' and provides essentials for batch-mode scripts. Nearly all necessary usage guidance, though explicit when-not to use is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool only sets the palette and does not modify existing pixels, which is key behavioral info. It does not detail permissions, reversibility, or file format requirements, but for a simple palette-setting operation, the disclosure is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then clarifying what it does not do, providing a usage tip, and listing parameters. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter options, and usage context. It fully enables an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by listing the preset options and explaining that filename is the file to modify. This provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the sprite palette to a built-in retro preset. It distinguishes from sibling tools like quantize_to_palette by explicitly noting it only sets the palette and does not change existing pixel colors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not: it only sets the palette, and recommends using quantize_to_palette if pixel snapping is needed. It also lists the available preset options in the Args section, helping the agent choose the correct parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the behavioral traits: shadows lean cooler, highlights lean warmer, and the output is ordered darkest to lightest. It also describes the effect of parameters like hue_shift_degrees and lightness_range. This is comprehensive for a pure generation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an explanation of the technique, usage guidance, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It describes the input parameters, the algorithm (hue-shifting), and the output format (JSON array of hex colors, darkest to lightest). No additional information is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool's 'Args' section in the description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters, including ranges, defaults, and meaning (e.g., base_color is a hex color, steps is 2-16, etc.). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a shading ramp from a base color using hue-shifting, a standard pixel-art technique. It distinguishes from simple darkening by explaining the hue-shift behavior. There are no sibling tools with similar functionality, so it is unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using the returned colors for shading instead of plain darker/lighter versions of the same hue, providing a clear context and reason for use. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools by name, but the guidance is specific enough for an agent to understand when to apply this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it 'flattens a throwaway clone' to composite layers, explaining the internal mechanism. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and succeeds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose and differentiation. Uses clear Args list format without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well. No output schema, but 'RGBA colour' implies return format. Could be more explicit about return value structure, but adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description documents all 4 parameters: filename, x, y (sprite-global coordinates), and frame_index (starts at 1). Adds meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reads the RGBA colour visible at a pixel by compositing all visible layers. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_pixel_color' which reads a single cel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage context: 'what the player actually sees', and contrasts with get_pixel_color for single cel. Suggests use for 'value/CVD QA on grouped/multi-layer scenes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NosytLabs/aseprite-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server