Export Sprite

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

The description does not disclose beyond the obvious export action any behavioral traits, such as writing output files to disk, executing external processes, potential for overwriting, or dependencies like Aseprite being installed. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short of revealing side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Export an existing Aseprite file/image'). It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits details about output behavior, parameter dependencies, edge cases, and the meaning of many schema properties, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly for complex use cases.

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 description adds no meaning to the input schema, simply noting that common CLI flags are used. With schema coverage at only 35% and many parameters (e.g., tag, layer, trim, splitLayers, splitSlices) left undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the parameter semantics gap.

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 that the tool exports existing Aseprite files/images to PNG/GIF/sheet/data, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aseprite_create_sprite (creation) and aseprite_cli (generic command execution) by focusing on export functionality.

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 implies the tool is for exporting sprites, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like aseprite_cli or aseprite_command_sequence. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, making the usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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