Run Aseprite Lua

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 only mentions that input sprites can be opened first, but it omits that executing Lua scripts can have arbitrary side effects, run in batch mode, or have security implications. This is a significant transparency gap for a code-execution tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The purpose and parameters are adequately described, making the tool usable. However, given the tool's power (arbitrary Lua execution), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral safety context and usage guidance to be truly complete.

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 input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, giving a high coverage baseline. The description adds a little context by summarizing 'inline or file-based' and 'opening input sprites first', but it does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter documentation.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Aseprite Lua script') and clearly distinguishes between inline and file-based scripts. It also differentiates the tool from siblings like aseprite_cli or aseprite_command_sequence by focusing specifically on Lua script execution.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aseprite_cli or aseprite_command_sequence. It lacks explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets minimal help selecting the correct tool.

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