Read Sprite Info

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

Without annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. It indicates a read-only operation by title and 'return metadata,' but does not explicitly state that the sprite is not modified, nor does it mention any error conditions or caveats. It does add value by listing the metadata fields returned.

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 sentence that gets to the point, front-loading the action and output. No waste.

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 read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description gives a good outline of returned data. It falls short of mentioning any dependencies or behavioral caveats, but overall it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 75% of parameters with descriptions, but the required 'input' parameter lacks a description. The tool description implies 'input' is a sprite file, but does not clarify expected format or examples. The description adds little beyond the schema for the other parameters.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('return metadata') and identifies the resource ('a sprite'), listing concrete output categories (size, frames, layers, tags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like aseprite_create_sprite or aseprite_export, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like aseprite_cli or aseprite_run_lua. It implies its use for reading sprite metadata but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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