Run Aseprite CLI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'run raw Aseprite CLI arguments' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or return behavior. 'Raw' hints at unvetted execution, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no waste. Every word serves a purpose, making it well-structured for quick comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a raw CLI execution tool with no output schema or annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: what output to expect, potential destructive behavior, and environmental dependencies. The schema describes params well, but the description fails to provide essential execution context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, including an example for args, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what's in the schema, and 'raw' is redundant with the schema's 'Raw Aseprite CLI arguments'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool runs raw Aseprite CLI arguments, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's for capabilities not covered by higher-level tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool for any native capability not covered by a higher-level tool, providing clear usage guidance. It implies not to use it when a higher-level tool exists, but it doesn't name specific alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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