Aseprite Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resolves the executable and reports version/configuration, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or whether it modifies any files. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function without fluff, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool is simple, but the description lacks detail on what 'configuration' includes, how the executable is resolved, or what the output format is. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context on return values, but it does offer a high-level indication of version/configuration reporting, which is adequate for a minimal viable description.

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 provides only the parameter name 'asepritePath' with no description. The description's phrase 'Resolve the Aseprite executable' provides a hint that this parameter is used to specify the executable's location, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly state the parameter's purpose or format, so it is partially helpful but not fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action: 'Resolve the Aseprite executable and report version/configuration.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like aseprite_create_sprite or aseprite_export, which handle different resources. The verb 'resolve' and the report of version/configuration give a precise purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aseprite_cli or aseprite_sprite_info. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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