Aseprite MCP Tools

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Several tools overlap in purpose, such as draw_circle vs draw_circle_at, adjust_hsl vs adjust_hsl_native, and outline_cel vs outline_native, which may confuse agents. The distinction between base and 'at' variants is clear but adds redundancy.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., add_frame, delete_layer, export_sprite. Minor deviations like animation_workflow_guide and get_sprite_info are acceptable but slightly break the pattern.
Tool Count2/5
With 113 tools, the server is overly large for typical MCP usage. Many tools are redundant (e.g., multiple tween and shape-drawing variants), suggesting the set could be streamlined to reduce cognitive load.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of pixel-art and animation operations, including layers, frames, palettes, tilemaps, and exports. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no bulk frame deletion), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the domain.
Average 3.4/5 across 113 of 113 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to state whether cels are created conditionally, what happens to existing cels, or any side effects. The term 'ensure' is ambiguous without further detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but its vagueness reduces efficiency. Every word should add value; here, 'Ensure cels exist' is not informative enough.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error conditions, and behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool definition adds no explanation for parameters. The parameters 'filename', 'layer_names', 'start_frame', and 'end_frame' are listed but not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ensure cels exist for layers across a frame range' is vague; the verb 'ensure' does not specify whether cels are created, verified, or modified. It mentions layers and frame range but lacks specificity to distinguish from siblings like 'create_cel' or 'propagate_cels'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The sibling list includes many cel-related tools (create_cel, clear_cel, propagate_cels, etc.) but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a flood fill starting at (x,y), whether it operates on the visible layer or entire frame, or if it is destructive. There is no indication of side effects, such as modifying existing pixels or requiring specific layer states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the main action but omits essential information, making it insufficient for correct tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings with similar names, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the fill algorithm, how to interpret results, or any constraints. Users must guess the tool's behavior from the name and schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description adds no parameter explanations. Key parameters like 'x', 'y' (start point), 'color' (fill color), and 'create_if_missing' (behavior when layer missing) are not clarified. The description solely mentions 'layer/frame' without elaborating on any parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Fill an area on a specific layer/frame,' which identifies the action and target but is vague. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'fill_area' or clarify whether this is a flood fill, rectangle fill, or other operation. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'fill_area', 'draw_pixels_at', or other fill-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should be chosen over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only says 'apply a linear gradient fill', which implies mutation but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (8 words) but lacks necessary detail. It is efficient but overly terse for a tool with many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not cover return values, side effects, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description provides no information about any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like color_start, horizontal, or create_if_missing remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'apply' and the objects 'linear gradient fill' and 'rectangle'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like fill_area or draw_rectangle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or relation to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a destructive operation but does not disclose permanence, auth needs, or consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary details, making it insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, success/failure indicators, or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what 'filename,' 'layer_name,' or 'frame_index' represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a cel on a layer/frame,' specifying the verb (delete) and resource (cel) in context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_cel' or 'create_cel'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, or any conditions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions drawing on a specific layer/frame but does not clarify behavior when layer/frame is missing (despite create_if_missing parameter), whether it overwrites or appends, or any side effects like modification of existing content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but under-specifies; it is not overloaded but lacks necessary detail for a tool with 7 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, 7 parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how the tool interacts with existing drawing or animation state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index, points, color, thickness, create_if_missing). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Draw' and resource 'path using a polyline on a specific layer/frame,' which distinguishes it from other drawing tools like draw_circle or draw_line. However, it could be more precise about whether 'path' means a continuous polyline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use draw_path vs alternatives such as draw_line, draw_polygon, or draw_pixels. Lacks context for selection among many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation by using 'get', but does not mention side effects, failure modes, or dependencies like requiring an open sprite. The parameter 'filename' is not explained, leaving ambiguity about its role.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-informative. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness, omitting crucial details about the parameter and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the meaning of 'active sprite', the purpose of the filename parameter, or the behavior when conditions are not met.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter 'filename' is required but completely unexplained in the description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent unable to determine what value to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'active sprite palette', specifying the output format as a JSON array of hex colors. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_palette' or 'extract_palette', though it could be more explicit about the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'extract_palette' or 'apply_palette_preset'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. 'Remap' implies modification, but details like whether it overwrites existing cels or creates new ones are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but structurally insufficient. It is front-loaded with the core action but omits critical details. Conciseness is undercut by the need for more content; an effective description would be slightly longer but more complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It fails to explain the mappings format, behavior across frames, effect on existing cels, or return value. The agent cannot fully understand or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only mentions 'explicit mappings' without specifying the format of the mappings parameter (array of objects with additionalProperties). It does not explain filename, layer_name, start/end_frame, create_missing_cels, or source_frame_index.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (remap colors), the target (a layer across a frame range), and the method (using explicit mappings). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like replace_color or set_palette, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 replace_color or extract_palette. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases. The description does not help the agent decide between this and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without detailing consequences like whether existing cels are modified, how easing is applied, or what happens when 'create_missing_cels' is false. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief for a tool with 11 parameters. It lacks structure and does not front-load critical details like the easing parameter or required inputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, 8 required) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how this tool interacts with sibling tweens. Agents would lack sufficient context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. Key parameters like 'easing', 'create_missing_cels', and 'source_frame_index' are not described. The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tweens cel positions with easing across a frame range, specifying the action and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'tween_cel_positions' (which likely does linear tweening) by mentioning easing. However, it does not explicitly note the easing parameter or the additional fields like start_x/start_y and end_x/end_y.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tween_cel_positions' for linear interpolation or 'tween_cel_scale_eased' for scaling. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool validates and returns missing items but does not disclose whether it is read-only or has side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise, but misses critical parameter information. It achieves efficiency but at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the output format in detail, frame range behavior, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameters. It does not add meaning to filename, required_layers, start_frame, or end_frame beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool validates presence of layers and cels across a frame range, and returns specific missing items. This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_animation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ensure_layers_present or audit_animation. The description implies its use for checking layers/cels across frames but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose where the frame is added, what happens to existing frames, or any side effects. The behavior 'add a new frame' is ambiguous without details on position or default properties.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief, the description omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Front-loading the purpose is good, but the single sentence leaves major gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description still fails to specify what actually happens (e.g., where the frame is added, return value, permissions). It is incomplete for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It restates 'filename' as the file name but provides no format, constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the schema's bare bones.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (add) and resource (frame to an Aseprite file), making the core function evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_frames', which likely adds multiple frames, so clarity on uniqueness is lacking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'add_frames' or 'delete_frame'. There is no context on prerequisites, such as whether the file must already exist or if frames are added at the end.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; the description only says 'copy' without disclosing if it overwrites (via replace param), whether source must exist, or any side effects. Insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and to the point, but so minimal that it sacrifices utility. No structure beyond one sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover essential context like behavior of replace, required format, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter details. The five parameters (filename, layer_name, source/target_frame, replace) remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (cel) with source and target context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like copy_frame or copy_sprite which copy different objects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., copy_frame for entire frame, copy_cel for single layer). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the polygon is auto-closed, how points are interpreted, or side effects like overwriting. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, but it is too brief and omits essential guidance. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, the description fails to provide adequate context about return values, error handling, or parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning to parameters like point format (required integer keys?), color format, fill behavior, or create_if_missing. The agent must guess from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Draw a polygon on a specific layer/frame' clearly states verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling drawing tools like draw_line, draw_rectangle, draw_circle, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., draw_rectangle) or when not to use it. There is no context for filling, color, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'set', which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects: does it affect existing colors on the sprite? Does it require specific permissions? No mention of reversibility or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary details. It could be structured to include parameter explanations or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship between filename and colors, or the resulting state of the palette. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the 'colors' parameter (hex strings). The 'filename' parameter is not explained at all—ambiguous whether it is a sprite filename or palette file name. This is insufficient for a tool with two required params.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the active sprite palette using hex colors. Verb 'set' and resource 'active sprite palette' are specific. It distinguishes from related tools like 'extract_palette' and 'get_palette' but could be more explicit about replacing the entire palette or adding to it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_palette_preset' or 'remap_colors_in_cel_range'. The description implies general usage but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies existing cels, creates new ones, or its destructive nature (hinted by 'replace' parameter). Lacks detail on side effects or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief for the tool's complexity. While it has no filler, it lacks structure and misses opportunities to front-load key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's 11 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the concept of tweening, how easing works, or the expected outcome. The description fails to provide enough context for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. None of the 11 parameters (e.g., start_scale, easing, anchor) are explained. The description does not clarify their purpose or acceptable values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (tween), the resource (cel scale), and the context (with easing across a frame range). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tween_cel_positions_eased' which tweens positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many tween tools (scale, opacity, positions), the description should indicate when scaling is appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains some parameters but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether the sprite is modified by default, or if the tool is read-only). The 'report_only' parameter defaults to false, implying fixes are applied, but this is not clarified. No mention of authorization or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It then provides parameter details with format examples. No unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover all parameters or explain the overall behavior sufficiently. The return JSON structure is mentioned, but details are missing for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only three parameters (layer_frame_ranges, out_of_range_action, ignore_full_canvas_overlaps) out of 15, leaving many like 'ensure_layers', 'overlap_pairs', and 'report_only' unexplained. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Normalize animation consistency and optionally apply fixes', which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It also mentions returning JSON with summary, layer_stats, alerts, overlaps. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'audit_animation' or 'validate_scene'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or mention any sibling tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description says 'return a concise English guide' but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, output format, or how the use_case parameter affects the guide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise in a single sentence but lacks structure and important details. It is front-loaded but too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and one parameter, the description should clarify what the guide contains and how to use the parameter. It is insufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'use_case' parameter is not mentioned in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain its purpose, valid values, or default behavior, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a guide for animation workflows, using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings which are specific animation manipulation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what happens if a cel already exists at the target frame/layer. The term 'empty cel' is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: one line plus a parameter list. No unnecessary sentences. However, it could include more helpful details without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or any prerequisites. The tool's behavior on conflict (e.g., existing cel) is undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameter names with minimal add-ons (e.g., 'X position in pixels'), but schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the coordinate system, units, or the meaning of 'empty' in relation to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'empty cel on a layer/frame', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cel_opacity or copy_cel. However, it lacks precision about what 'empty' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like copy_cel or set_cel_position. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion shifts subsequent frame indices, irreversible nature, or any side effects. The description only says 'Delete a frame by index' without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The arg list is clear. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping), but it is efficient for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, and the effect on the frame index order. Sibling tools are many, but the description does not help differentiate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some value by explaining that frame_index starts at 1 and filename is an Aseprite file. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not clarify formats or constraints (e.g., full path vs relative name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('frame'), and specifies the parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like clear_cel or copy_frame, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clear_cel, copy_frame). The description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where deleting a frame is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits. It does not mention the effect of changes, whether it modifies the current sprite, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters like 'before', 'after', 'opacity'. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures onion skin settings. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'render_onion_skin' which has a related purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like render_onion_skin. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully needs to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, creation behavior (create_if_missing), or overwrite behavior, but it provides none. It only repeats the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and very concise, but it is under-specified. Important information is missing, so conciseness trades off completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not cover the most critical aspects: coordinates, color, fill, or layer/frame creation behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not mention center_x, center_y, radius, color, fill, or create_if_missing, leaving the agent to infer from names, which may be ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Draw), resource (a circle), and context (on a specific layer/frame). The name 'draw_circle_at' reinforces targeting a specific location, distinguishing it from sibling 'draw_circle' which likely draws without specifying location.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'draw_circle' or 'draw_ellipse_at'. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the rectangle is filled, outlines, replaces existing content, or uses current styles. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not explain drawing behavior, error cases, or coordinate system, leaving the agent without enough context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter explanations. The description adds no value beyond parameter names. For a tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (draw a rectangle) and the target (specific layer/frame). It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_rectangle which may not target a layer/frame. However, it could be more precise about the coordinate system or units.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_rectangle or draw_circle. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It states the tool audits overlaps and out-of-range activity and returns JSON, but does not clarify if the tool is read-only, performance implications, or error handling. Missing details on side effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the examples for parameter formats are integrated into the text without clear separation. Could benefit from structured bullets or clearer parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand all inputs and expected behavior. Missing parameter explanations, error scenarios, and prerequisites make it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides example formats for overlap_pairs and layer_frame_ranges, but other parameters like filename, start_frame, end_frame, layer_names, report_cels, report_bounds, max_overlaps, max_out_of_range are not described. Significant gaps remain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool audits animation frames for overlaps and out-of-range layer activity. It specifies the core functionality and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on animation auditing rather than generic validation or manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_scene or other audit tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the basic operation without detailing side effects (e.g., whether original sprite is modified, file creation behavior). Does not disclose potential issues like overwriting without confirmation (though overwrite param exists) or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (4 lines) and front-loads the core purpose. The args list is clearly structured. No unnecessary information, though it could be slightly refined by removing the redundant 'Args:' header.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and a complex sibling set, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value (created file path? success status?), error conditions, or behavior when overwrite is false and file exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides one-line explanations for each parameter: filename, output_filename, overwrite. This is minimal but sufficient to understand basic purpose. Lacks format constraints, valid paths, or error conditions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Copy a sprite' and the target 'to a new Aseprite file'. It distinguishes from sibling copy tools (copy_cel, copy_frame, copy_region) by focusing on the whole sprite. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a sprite (e.g., all layers, frames) to fully differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like copy_cel, copy_frame, or duplicate_frame_range. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open) or context such as saving.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes parameters and does not explain what happens during drawing (e.g., overwriting, error conditions, or that create_if_missing controls cel creation). The description lacks key behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is organized as a brief docstring with the main action first, followed by a clear parameter list. It is concise and each sentence adds value, though the parameter list format is somewhat redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters with many required and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of inputs but lacks coverage of overall behavior, return values, or error conditions. It is adequate for simple use but incomplete for complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds basic meaning by explaining each parameter in the docstring, e.g., 'frame_index: Frame index starting at 1' and 'color: Hex color code (default "#000000")'. This adds some value beyond the schema titles, but the explanations are minimal and do not cover constraints or interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Draw an ellipse on a specific layer/frame,' which clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like draw_circle_at or draw_rectangle_at, missing an opportunity to clarify when to use an ellipse specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 draw_circle_at or draw_rectangle. It merely lists parameters without context on selecting the appropriate tool for different shapes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 'create_if_missing' parameter but does not explain behavior on out-of-bounds pixels, overwriting existing pixels, color format specifications, or side effects. Insufficient for a drawing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary text, front-loaded purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing return value details, no explanation of pixel behavior (e.g., coordinate system, color model), and no interaction with other tools. For a parameter-rich tool with no output schema, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section adds meaning (e.g., 'List of pixel data with x/y/color'). However, the 'pixels' parameter structure is vague (object with additionalProperties), leaving ambiguity on required keys and types. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draw pixels on a specific layer/frame,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like draw_pixels (which may act on current layer) by specifying the layer/frame targeting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draw_pixels or other drawing tools. Usage context is only implied by the description; explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, reversibility, behavior on empty cels) or coordinate system details, leaving the agent with significant unknowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear header and parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for parsing, though the parameter details add length without deep insight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., error handling, effect on existing positions, coordinate origin). It covers 'what' but not 'how' or 'edge cases'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. It clarifies 'start_frame' and 'end_frame' are 1-based and inclusive, and dx/dy are in pixels. However, it mostly repeats parameter names without additional constraints or examples, providing moderate improvement over the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'offset' and resource 'cel positions' with specific parameters for delta and frame range. It distinguishes from siblings like 'oscillate_cel_positions' and 'tween_cel_positions' by specifying a constant offset over a range, but does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_cel_position' or 'move_region'. No prerequisites or constraints (e.g., valid layer, frame range) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions oscillation with a sine wave but does not state whether existing cel positions are modified, if cels are created (despite the 'create_missing_cels' parameter), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence. However, it could be structured with more detail without significant bloat. It is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is too minimal. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or relationships to similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It does not describe any of the 10 parameters (e.g., amplitude_x, cycles) beyond the name, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'oscillate', the resource 'cel positions', and the method 'using a sine wave' across 'a frame range'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tween_cel_positions' and 'offset_cel_positions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tween_cel_positions' or 'offset_cel_positions'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies frame duration but does not mention whether the change is permanent, what happens if the frame_index is out of bounds, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks sufficient behavioral context for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a structured 'Args:' list. It conveys the essential information without extraneous text. The only potential improvement would be to integrate the parameter descriptions more naturally, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple modification tool, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. However, it lacks important context such as whether the operation is idempotent, what constitutes an invalid frame index, and the exact effect on the file. Given no output schema and simple parameters, a bit more detail would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line explanations for all three parameters: filename (file to modify), frame_index (starting at 1), and duration_ms (in milliseconds). While these explanations are necessary, they are basic and add limited meaning beyond the parameter names, resulting in a middling score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets the duration of a frame in milliseconds, using a specific verb 'Set' and resource 'duration of a frame'. It implies modification of an existing file via the 'filename' parameter. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'set_frame_duration_all', the singular 'a frame' and the 'frame_index' parameter differentiate it for single-frame operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For instance, there is no mention that this tool sets individual frame durations while 'set_frame_duration_all' sets a uniform duration for all frames. Additionally, no prerequisites or constraints are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether setting visibility is reversible or requires specific permissions. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but redundantly lists parameters in an args block that mirrors the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the schema duplication while retaining the core explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance, given the absence of annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add value. However, it only lists parameter names and types, which are already in the schema. It does not explain the effect of 'visible' (e.g., default true), valid values, or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set layer visibility by name,' specifying the verb (set) and the resource (layer visibility). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_layer_blend_mode or set_layer_opacity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_layer, set_layer_blend_mode) is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites or context such as requiring the file to be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool creates or updates a tag and lists valid direction values, but omits important details such as whether it overwrites existing tags, any side effects, required permissions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, with the purpose clearly stated first and the direction options listed neatly. However, it could be improved by structuring the parameter explanations separately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not address the meaning of key parameters, return values, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains the 'direction' parameter with possible values, while leaving 'filename', 'name', 'from_frame', and 'to_frame' entirely unexplained. This adds minimal value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or updates an animation tag on a sprite, with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the direction parameter options, adding clarity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'delete_tag' by implying it is for creation/updating rather than deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'delete_tag' or other tag-related operations. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual advice for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states it tweens linearly but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting cels, file modification, frame range requirements, or whether it's reversible).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a parameter list, which is reasonably concise. However, the parameter list largely duplicates schema information, so it could be more efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context like return values, side effects, or prerequisites. The tool's behavior is not fully explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description lists parameters with titles identical to the schema but adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'Starting X position in pixels' is already implied by the parameter name). No explanation of 'create_missing_cels' or 'source_frame_index' beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Tween cel positions linearly across a frame range' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tween_cel_positions_eased by implying linear interpolation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., offset_cel_positions, oscillate_cel_positions, or eased variants). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only states it draws a circle and implies file modification via the filename parameter, but omits details about destructive nature, undo support, canvas coordinate system, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with a clear Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the Args list largely mirrors the schema, making it slightly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about how the drawing operation integrates with the canvas (e.g., layer, frame, coordinate system). It lacks completeness for a tool that modifies a file.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter (filename, center_x, center_y, radius, color, fill) with types, defaults, and brief clarifications (e.g., 'Hex color code'). However, it could be more precise about coordinate origin and color format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draw a circle on the canvas', specifying the action and target. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'draw_circle_at' or 'draw_ellipse', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for proper use. The description lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists parameters. It does not disclose effects like overwriting, layer interaction, or coordinate bounds handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by structured parameter list. No wasted words, though the Args format adds minor verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing crucial context such as which layer or frame the line is drawn on, whether it overwrites, or what the tool returns. Given the sibling tool complexity, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'x1: Starting x coordinate'), adding value beyond the schema's bare names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Draw a line on the canvas' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like draw_line_at or draw_path, which share similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like draw_line_at or draw_rectangle. The description lacks any context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses core behavior (copy all cels, option to append), but doesn't explain what happens to existing cels, how overwrite works, or the effect of target_frame being null. No annotations, so description carries full burden but is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'append' means, how target_frame default null behaves, or if the tool creates frames. Lacks completeness for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. 'filename', 'source_frame', 'target_frame', and 'overwrite' are not described. The phrase 'or append' hints at target_frame behavior but is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it copies all cels from source to target frame, with append option. Distinguishes from sibling 'copy_cel' which copies a single cel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_cel or add_frame. Does not explain prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states action, not side effects like permanence of deletion or effect on other slices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences and a parameter list, no wasted words, purpose upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks essential context such as requirement that slice exists, outcome if not found, or any post-operation effects. Inadequate given the complexity of a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds minimal value: 'Aseprite file to modify' for filename and 'Slice name to delete' for name. Does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a slice by name.' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_frame, delete_layer, delete_tag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool. No prerequisites or alternative tool suggestions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'draw a line'. It does not disclose any side effects, coordinate system, behavior if layer/frame missing (despite a create_if_missing parameter), or whether it overwrites existing lines. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, though it could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters, 7 required, and no output schema or annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain return values, coordinate system, interaction with existing content, or error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't describe any parameters. While parameter names like x1,y1,x2,y2 are intuitive, the description adds no context about formats (e.g., color hex format, thickness units, create_if_missing implications). The agent relies solely on schema titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (draw a line) and the target context (specific layer/frame). This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like 'draw_line' (which likely uses current layer/frame) and other draw-at tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Siblings like 'draw_line' are not mentioned, and there is no hint about when to choose this tool vs others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation modifies the file permanently, overwrites existing pixels, or any side effects. The description is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear leading sentence and structured parameter list. No unnecessary information is included, but it could benefit from a brief usage example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple drawing tool, the description covers the basic parameters and purpose. However, it lacks details about coordinate system, clipping behavior, or post-drawing state (e.g., if the canvas is saved). With 7 parameters and no output schema, it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by listing constraints (e.g., width > 0, height > 0) and defaults (color, fill). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though parameter descriptions are still brief.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Draw a rectangle') and the resource ('on the canvas'). It is specific and distinguishable from most siblings, though there is a sibling 'draw_rectangle_at' which could cause confusion without further differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'draw_rectangle_at' or other drawing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Lacks details on side effects (e.g., modifies the file, overwrites existing durations). No annotations provided to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with front-loaded purpose. The Args section is clean, but could be integrated into a single sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Too brief for a tool with many siblings. Lacks context on file persistence, error handling, or return value. No output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds basic meaning beyond schema titles (e.g., 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify'), but is minimal for 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it sets the duration of all frames in milliseconds, distinguishing it from sibling 'set_frame_duration' which targets a single frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'set_frame_duration'. No context on prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions parameter ranges and optional region, but omits whether the operation is destructive, modifies in-place, or has side effects like affecting other layers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, uses a clear list format for arguments, and front-loads the purpose. No extraneous information, every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain the overall effect, return value, or how it integrates with the sprite. Missing context like whether the filter applies instantaneously or returns a result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: it explains each parameter's role (e.g., 'brightness: -100..100') and condition for region. However, the descriptions are minimal and could be more detailed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Native Brightness/Contrast filter' and lists the specific parameters (brightness, contrast) and scope (layer, frame, optional region). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like adjust_hsl.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adjust_hsl_native, apply_convolution). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the source is modified, what happens if layers don't exist, or the effect of the replace and create_missing_frames parameters beyond their basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section provides a clear structure. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the parameters and basic functionality. However, it lacks information on error handling, return values, and behavior in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter (e.g., replace means 'Overwrite existing cels', create_missing_frames means 'Add frames to target if needed'). However, schema coverage is 0%, and the explanations are minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Copy layers by name from a source sprite to a target sprite', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_cel, copy_frame, and copy_region that perform different copy operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools for other copy scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only describes parameters. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing slices), permissions, or success/failure outputs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a one-line purpose and a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but omits overall behavior like return value or uniqueness constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's 'Args' section adds meaning beyond the schema by defining each parameter (filename, name, x, y, width, height) with brief descriptions. This compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a named slice (a rectangular region usable by game engines),' specifying the verb, resource, and context. Among sibling tools like delete_slice, list_slices, set_slice_center, set_slice_pivot, it is distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a layer or other region tools. No when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions exporting to a format, without disclosing whether the original file is modified, if the output file is overwritten, or any other side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a list of arguments. No wasted words; every element adds value. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential inputs and action. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or whether the file must be currently open. Adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden. It explains each parameter: filename as the source file, output_filename as the target, and format with default and example values. This adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it exports an Aseprite file to another format, which is specific and distinct from sibling export tools that export specific components (frames, layers, spritesheet, tags). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to other export tools (export_frame, export_layers, etc.) or under what conditions. The description lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks behavioral details like tolerance, layer targeting, or frame scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a parameter list; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple fill tool but missing details on fill behavior (contiguous? tolerance?) and effect scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it fills an area with color using the paint bucket tool, but does not differentiate from the sibling 'fill_area_at'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fill_area_at or other drawing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the outline effect on adjacent transparent pixels and parameter 'include_diagonals', but fails to disclose whether operation is destructive, creates a new cel, or side effects like layer visibility or irreversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Relatively concise with a separate Args section; could be more integrated but no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, description lacks information about whether the cel is replaced or modified, and any side effects or prerequisites, making it incomplete for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose, default, and effect (e.g., 'include_diagonals: Also outline diagonal neighbors'). Explanations are clear but minimal for some parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool adds a 1px outline around opaque pixels, with specific description of adjacent transparent pixel handling. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'outline_native', but purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a use case ('great for making sprites read clearly against any background') but lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives like 'outline_native'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the file is saved immediately, if errors occur for missing layers, or any permissions required. The description just states the action without added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists parameters efficiently. Every sentence is earned.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 string parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention return behavior, error conditions, or confirmation of success. The context signals indicate low complexity, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify') but adds little beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate with details like allowed formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Rename a layer.' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_layer, duplicate_layer, reorder_layer, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit conditions or exclusions are provided. The description only states the function without context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that content is scaled to new dimensions but does not disclose whether aspect ratio is preserved, what happens if dimensions are smaller/larger, or any restrictions like minimum size. No annotations are present to supplement this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient: a single sentence summarizing the action followed by a brief parameter list. No extraneous text, but the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it omits important behavior (e.g., scaling mode, background handling) that an agent would need for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'New canvas width in pixels'). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but does not include constraints or format details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Scale' and identifies the resource 'canvas and all its content' with the action of setting new dimensions. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'crop_canvas' which removes content, and 'create_canvas' which creates a new canvas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'crop_canvas' or 'resize via content scaling'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Delete', which implies destructiveness but omits details like irreversibility, effect on child elements, or undo support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two lines plus an Args list. Every word adds value, action verb is front-loaded, and no sentences are wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple destructive tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers core function and parameter purpose. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., missing layer), side effects, or recovery options, leaving gaps for new users.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides brief parameter descriptions ('Aseprite file to modify', 'Name of the layer to delete'), adding meaning beyond schema titles. While minimal, it clarifies context for both parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it deletes a layer by name, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_frame' or 'clear_cel', and includes explicit parameter names and brief definitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hiding a layer, merging, or clearing cels). The description does not mention prerequisites, errors, or appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action, omitting any details about irreversibility, error behavior, or consequences of deleting a tag in use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, using a clear args format with no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention return values, error cases, or whether the operation is immediately applied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides brief explanations for both parameters (filename as Aseprite file, name as tag name), adding value beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, the explanations are minimal and lack detail about expected formats or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool deletes an animation tag by name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_frame or delete_layer, which delete different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool, nor any comparison to alternative deletion tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core effect but fails to mention that it modifies the sprite in-place, whether the operation is irreversible, or any potential side effects like affecting other layers or frames. The tolerance parameter's effect is implied but not fully described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan. However, it could benefit from a brief note on return values or side effects without significantly increasing length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value (if any), whether the tool modifies the file directly, error conditions, or if it works on the current cel only. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, more context is needed for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter in the Args list. It provides an example for color (e.g., '#FF00FF') and states the default and range for tolerance (0-255). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Make all pixels of a given color transparent (like a magic eraser).' This provides a specific verb ('erase') and resource ('pixels of a given color'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like replace_color or fill_area.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replace_color or erase_region. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the action but omits behavioral details such as whether the file is modified, undoability, or effect on current frame state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with purpose stated in first sentence; no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple setter tool with two parameters and no output schema, though could clarify 'active frame' implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides basic parameter descriptions (filename, frame_index) and notes frame_index is 1-based, but lacks constraints like valid range or existence requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it sets the active frame by 1-based index, distinguishing it from add/delete/copy frame operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_frame or delete_frame; lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the effect ('set...opacity') and the parameter range, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether changes are saved immediately, what happens if the layer doesn't exist, or if the operation is reversible). This is insufficient for making informed invocation decisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. Each sentence is necessary and adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for basic use. However, it lacks information on error handling, return values, and typical usage patterns. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not outstanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for properties (0% coverage), so the description's 'Args' section adds essential clarification: it explains what each parameter represents ('Name of the Aseprite file to modify', etc.). However, it does not provide additional details like format constraints or behavioral implications beyond the basic type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Set layer opacity by name (0-255).' It specifies the verb 'set', the resource 'layer opacity', and the valid range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cel_opacity (which targets cel-level opacity) and set_layer_blend_mode or set_layer_visibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_cel_opacity or set_layer_blend_mode. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 indicates a mutation (set operation) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error cases (e.g., missing slice), or whether the file is modified immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It uses a clear header and structured list for parameters, making it efficient to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the parameter semantics and purpose. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavior when the slice does not exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' block that explains each parameter (filename, name, x, y) with their meaning (e.g., 'relative to the slice'). This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set a slice's pivot point' and specifies the resource (slice's pivot point) with scope (relative to slice origin). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_slice_center'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use advice. It only describes the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the server runs in the background, how to access it, or security considerations. It lacks sufficient detail for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. Every word serves a purpose, and it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about output, server access URL, lifecycle (how to stop), and asynchronous behavior. While sibling 'stop_preview_server' exists, the tool context is incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It repeats parameter names and default values without providing additional semantic context or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Start'), resource ('HTTP server'), and purpose ('to preview exported sprites'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stop_preview_server'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for previewing exported sprites but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any contextual guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states 'tween cel opacity' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether missing cels are created, if properties are overwritten). Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the core action and key feature (easing). No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters (6 required) and no output schema or parameter details, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'easing' entails, the role of create_missing_cels, or what the result looks like, leaving agents to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no explanation for any of the 9 parameters (0% schema coverage). Only mentions 'easing' generically, but does not clarify the easing options or the effect of create_missing_cels, source_frame_index, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool tweens cel opacity with easing over a frame range, distinguishing it from siblings like set_cel_opacity (single-frame) and tween_cel_positions_eased (position tweening).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like set_cel_opacity or other tween tools. The description implies usage for animating opacity but lacks exclusion or context for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwriting, file locking), error conditions (e.g., missing file, invalid sheet type), or whether the operation is read-only or modifies the original file. This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact docstring with a two-line intro followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is informative with no filler. Slight improvement would be possible by grouping similar parameters, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics decently but lacks behavioral details like error handling, file overwrite behavior, and the structure of the optional JSON output. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more contextual information would help the agent fully understand the tool's effects and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter: filename (input file), output_filename (PNG path), sheet_type (layout options), data_filename (optional JSON), scale, padding, and tag_name. However, sheet_type options ('horizontal', 'vertical', 'rows', 'columns', 'packed') are listed without explanation of differences, slightly reducing clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export frames as a sprite sheet, optionally with a JSON data file.' This is a specific action (export) on a specific resource (frames) to produce a sheet, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_frame, export_layers, and export_sprite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a list of parameters but does not include any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives (e.g., export_frame, export_layers). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or conditions that favor this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output format behavior (GIF vs PNG) and scale default, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, affects the source file, or requires specific file state. This is insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The Args section is structured but could be formatted more cleanly. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but omits error conditions, return behavior, and prerequisites. It is adequate for a simple export but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that output_filename extension determines file type (GIF animation vs PNG sequence) and scale default. However, it does not explain filename (expected Aseprite file), tag_name (case sensitivity), or output_filename path resolution. Partial compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports frames of an animation tag as a GIF or PNG sequence. The verb 'export' and resource 'animation tag' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling export tools like export_frame (single frame) and export_sprite (entire sprite).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter details and implies when to use (exporting a tagged animation), but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives. With many sibling export tools, clearer guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it flattens all layers, which implies a destructive operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., effects on groups, frames, undo history). Adequate but basic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with two sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the argument is documented concisely. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like whether it affects all frames or how it handles groups. Could be more complete given the complex sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by clarifying that 'filename' is an Aseprite file to modify. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('flatten all layers into a single layer') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'merge_layer_down' which also reduces layers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other layer-merging tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent has no context on when flattening is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return format but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, required permissions, or side effects. It does not contradict any implicit expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description helpfully includes return format. However, it fails to clarify the 'filename' parameter and assumes context. For a list tool with one param, it is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'filename' is not explained; schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent unclear about what filename refers to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'slices', and specifies the return format (JSON array with fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_slice, delete_slice, set_slice_center, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for reading slices but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., get_sprite_info). No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'overwrite' parameter (default true) but does not disclose side effects like frame creation or behavior on existing cels. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise one-line summary followed by parameter list. Efficient, though could be slightly more streamlined. Value per sentence is high.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers parameters well but lacks broader context: return value, error handling, prerequisites. No output schema. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all 5 parameters in a docstring (e.g., 'source_frame: Frame index to copy from (1-based)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Copy all layers from a source frame to a range of frames', using a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('layers'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'copy_frame' and 'duplicate_frame_range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_frame' or 'propagate_cels'. The description lacks prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies a slice's center rectangle but does not disclose effects like file saving, error handling, or required permissions. The behavioral implications of setting invalid coordinates or non-existent slices are absent, resulting in a score of 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a bullet list of arguments. The first sentence states the core function. The docstring is efficient, though it slightly repeats the 'relative to the slice' phrase. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately for a mutation tool. However, it omits context about prerequisite slice existence, invalid input handling, and return value. It is fairly complete but has minor gaps, scoring 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description includes a detailed docstring explaining each parameter (filename, name, x, y, width, height) with additional context like 'relative to the slice'. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions. Score 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool sets a slice's 9-patch center rectangle, specifying it is relative to the slice origin. The purpose is explained (stretchable region for game engines), but it does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like set_slice_pivot. The verb 'Set' and resource are clear, earning a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where it should not be used. The mention of 'game engines' gives a weak context, but without exclusions or alternatives, it scores 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies the file in place, returns a new sprite, or any side effects. The behavioral impact (e.g., destructive or reversible) is unclear, which is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a one-line purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, the parameter list could be slightly more compact, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it modifies the sprite, or the nature of 'engine-quality'. More context on behavior and output is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing value ranges for hue (-180..180), saturation (-100..100), lightness (-100..100), and notes that width/height >0 scopes the region. Since schema coverage is 0%, this added detail is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is a 'Native Hue/Saturation/Lightness filter' and distinguishes it from 'adjust_hsl' with the parenthetical 'engine-quality vs adjust_hsl'. The verb 'filter' and resource (Hue/Saturation/Lightness) are specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the alternative tool 'adjust_hsl' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling. It merely states 'engine-quality' without further context, so usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and parameters, omitting side effects (e.g., file saving behavior), error handling, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one line for purpose followed by a clear parameter list. No extraneous information, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., whether the canvas is returned) and operational context (e.g., whether a server is required). This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: it specifies units (pixels) for width and height, and provides a default value for filename. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new Aseprite canvas' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_cel' or 'create_slice' which create sub-elements rather than a top-level canvas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates pixels are drawn (mutating the canvas) but omits details about overwriting, blending, undo, coordinate bounds, or required permissions. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one sentence for purpose and a structured argument list. Every word is necessary, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the basic interface. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether it overwrites or blends) and usage scenarios. Given no output schema, more detail on return values or side effects would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: for 'filename' it specifies 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify', and for 'pixels' it explicitly defines the expected structure (list of objects with x, y, color) and color format (hex code). This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Draw pixels on the canvas') and specifies the resource (pixels) and scope (canvas). It distinguishes itself from sibling drawing tools that draw shapes (e.g., draw_circle, draw_line) by targeting individual pixels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, coordinate system, or comparison to similar tools like draw_pixels_at. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifies file in-place), reversibility, or permission requirements. The simple verb 'rotate' lacks behavioral depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One-line purpose followed by a clean Args list; every element is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description does not explain return values or confirm that the operation modifies the file. Adequate for a simple mutation but lacking confirmation of side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides context for all four parameters (e.g., filename as 'Aseprite file to modify', frame_index as 'starting at 1', angle options). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool rotates a layer's image by 90, 180, or 270 degrees clockwise, specifying the exact action and resource, distinguishing it from similar tools like flip_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Convert the sprite's color mode' without indicating side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the file in place), reversibility, required permissions, or any limitations. The allowed modes are listed but not explained in terms of consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero extraneous words. Every part is necessary and directly relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple conversion tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., success indication), whether the sprite is directly modified, and any prerequisites (e.g., file must exist). It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'filename: Aseprite file to modify' and 'mode: "rgb", "grayscale", or "indexed"'. This provides concrete allowed values for mode, which is a significant improvement over the raw schema that only specifies 'string'. The filename explanation is basic but sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Convert the sprite's color mode', which clearly identifies the action (convert) and resource (sprite's color mode). It further specifies the allowed modes ('rgb', 'grayscale', or 'indexed'), making the purpose precise and distinguishing it from other color manipulation siblings like adjust_hsl or quantize_to_palette.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention that this tool should be used to switch the color mode of a sprite, nor does it exclude cases where other tools (e.g., quantize_to_palette) would be more appropriate. The context for usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it modifies the active layer, but does not disclose that this is a state-changing operation, potential side effects (e.g., changing which layer is edited), or error behavior if the layer doesn't exist (partially addressed by create_if_missing). Lacks explicit safety or mutation information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a parameter list. No wasted words. The most important action is stated first. Ideal for quick parsing by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks mention of side effects (e.g., changing active layer for subsequent operations) and does not address return values. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but clear descriptions for each parameter: filename specifies the file to modify, layer_name the layer to activate, and create_if_missing explains behavior when layer is absent. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the active layer by name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify layer properties (e.g., set_layer_opacity, set_layer_blend_mode) or manage layers (add_layer, delete_layer). The verb 'Set the active layer by name' is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that set_frame is for setting the active frame, or that set_layer is for activating a layer before editing. Missing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description says 'Aseprite file to modify' implying the tool mutates the file, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a docstring with a brief overview followed by parameter descriptions. It is clear and mostly concise, though the parameter section could be slightly streamlined. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for the parameters and their defaults. It covers the essential information for using the tool, including how to specify a region. Missing details about return values or errors are minor given the tool's straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: filename, matrix (with examples like 'blur-3x3'), layer_name, frame_index, and optional region parameters with conditions (width>0 & height>0 to scope). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a 'Native convolution filter' and lists examples like blur, sharpen, edge, emboss. This effectively communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other image manipulation tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for applying convolution filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adjust_brightness_contrast or adjust_hsl. It does reference list_convolution_matrices for finding matrix names, providing some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It explains the dither algorithm and density range but fails to mention that the operation modifies the file directly, whether it is destructive (overwrites existing pixels), or what happens if the layer or frame is missing (despite having create_if_missing, no explanation of behavior when false). No return value or side effects are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a concise summary followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify' could be shortened). Overall, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and algorithm details but lacks completeness in behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens on invalid input, error conditions, whether it creates a new cel or edits in place, and the exact return format). It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description compensates by providing an Args section with brief but clear explanations for all 11 parameters, including default values for density and create_if_missing, and specifying that colors are hex. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fill a rectangle with a uniform Bayer-dithered mix of two colors.' It specifies the verb (fill), resource (rectangle), and algorithm (Bayer dither), distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply_dither_gradient or apply_gradient_rect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions use cases ('useful for textures (stone, grass) and flat mid-tones between two palette colors'), implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is implicit rather than prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, if the file is saved automatically, or error conditions (e.g., missing layer). The description only explains the straightforward flip action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, the parameter descriptions mirror the parameter titles somewhat, but overall minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic operation and all parameters, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or preconditions (e.g., file must exist). For a simple tool, this is mostly adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the role of each parameter, including clarifying that frame_index starts at 1 and direction defaults to 'horizontal'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Flip a layer's image horizontally or vertically.' It uses a specific verb ('flip') and identifies the resource ('layer's image'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like rotate_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter details but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rotate_layer or other transformation tools. Usage context is implied by the action, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose that the merged layer is removed after merging. This is a significant behavioral trait that an agent should know. The description only says 'merge' without clarifying the effect on the merged layer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence describing the action followed by a clear Args section. No unnecessary words, and the key constraint is front-loaded in the Args. Every sentence is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens to the merged layer, any prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist), and the result state. It fails to describe the outcome, making it incomplete for a safe agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section adds meaning: 'filename' is described as 'Aseprite file to modify' and 'layer_name' as 'Layer to merge down (must not be the bottom layer)'. This provides context beyond the schema, though it could specify path requirements for filename.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: merging a layer into the layer directly below it. The verb 'merge' and the resource 'layer' are specific, and the tool name aligns well. It distinguishes from siblings like 'flatten_sprite' (merges all) and 'delete_layer'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a constraint (layer must not be bottom) but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flatten_sprite' or 'merge_layer_down' (though there is no sibling merge). Usage is implied but not explicit about when to choose this over other layer operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the action itself, such as side effects, required permissions, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence followed by a parameter list. No wasted words; front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and description does not mention return values or effects. Could be more complete, but adequate for a basic setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters with explanations and allowed values for 'mode', adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'layer's blend mode'. It is distinct from sibling tools like set_layer_opacity or set_layer_visibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies a file (destructive) but does not clarify what happens if the layer already exists, the file is locked, or any other behavioral traits. Missing return value and error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with an Args section that lists parameters efficiently. No superfluous text; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides basic functionality but is incomplete. It lacks information on return value, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), and error handling. Adequate for simple use but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is essential. It adds meaning for all three parameters: explains filename as file to modify, layer_name as new layer name, and group with default and path syntax. This compensates for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a new layer to the Aseprite file,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_frame, add_group, and duplicate_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_layer or rename_layer. Usage is implied but lacks when-not-to-use or when-to-prefer indications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits: coordinates are sprite-global, transparent pixels don't overwrite, destination cel created if missing. However, it omits details about out-of-bounds behavior, target layer existence, and potential side effects. With no annotations, it provides moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a behavioral overview followed by a parameter list. It is informative but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 params, 9 required) and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, success indicators, or error conditions. It covers usage well but is incomplete regarding outcomes and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a detailed parameter list with explanations for each of the 11 parameters, compensating for the schema's 0% coverage. It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing what each parameter does, e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Copy a rectangular region of pixels to another position, layer, or frame.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'move_region' (move vs copy) and 'erase_region'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'move_region' or 'copy_cel'. The description implies usage for copying regions but does not provide when-not-to-use or contrast with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description discloses the action 'make transparent' but omits side effects: whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the file in-place, how out-of-bounds regions are handled, or if the operation affects other layers. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line action statement followed by a structured Args list. No redundant or ambiguous information. Every sentence adds value and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All 7 required parameters are explained. However, the description lacks information about return values (what the tool returns) and missing details like whether the region can exceed canvas bounds. An output schema is absent, so the description should specify the outcome. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 7 parameters with brief but meaningful explanations (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify' for filename). The input schema only provides titles, so the description adds essential semantics. Schema description coverage was 0%, but the description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'erase_region' and description clearly state it erases (makes transparent) a rectangular region of pixels. The description specifies the resource (pixels in a sprite) and the action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'erase_color' (color-based erasing) and 'clear_cel' (clears entire cel).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies pixel-level editing but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., layer must be raster) or when to choose 'erase_region' over 'fill_area' or 'clear_cel'. The hint 'Coordinates are sprite-global' provides minor context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is largely transparent, identifying it as a read operation ('Read the RGBA color'). However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., tuple or string) or any edge cases, which would add value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured with a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While parameter explanations are adequate, the description omits the return value format and does not mention any prerequisites. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not fully complete given the lack of both annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, making the tool description the sole source. It clearly explains all 5 parameters, including default behaviors for layer_name and frame_index (active layer, start at 1). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read the RGBA color of a single pixel' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_composite_pixel and get_pixels_rect by specifying 'single pixel' and 'RGBA'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 get_composite_pixel or get_pixels_rect. The description lacks any context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter behavior (e.g., layer_name defaulting to active layer, region scoping condition) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the file in-place, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured. The first line states the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While all parameters are explained, the description lacks information about return values or confirmation of success. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot infer what the tool returns after execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: filename is an Aseprite file, layer_name uses empty string for active layer, frame_index is 1-based, and region only activates when width>0 and height>0. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs native color inversion, specifying the exact command (app.command.InvertColor). It distinguishes from sibling color adjustment tools like adjust_brightness_contrast or adjust_hsl by focusing on inversion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention prerequisites, best practices, or scenarios where inversion is preferable over other color adjustments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not reveal side effects (e.g., overwriting cels, required frame existence) or prerequisites (e.g., layers must exist). The 'replace' parameter is mentioned but not explained in context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by structured parameter documentation. No redundant or extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core functionality and parameters well. However, it does not mention what happens if target frames do not exist, or how this tool compares to similar siblings like 'propagate_frame_to_range'. Still, it is largely sufficient for usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents each parameter's meaning, including that frame indices are 1-based and that 'replace' defaults to True. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy cels'), the source ('from a source frame'), the destination ('to a range of frames'), and the target ('for specific layers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_cel' and 'propagate_frame_to_range' by specifying per-layer copying across a range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Siblings like 'copy_cel', 'duplicate_frame_range', and 'propagate_frame_to_range' exist, but the description does not differentiate scenarios or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool stops the server, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing connections. Adequate for a simple action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant given the single parameter. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is fairly complete. It lacks context on post-stop effects or prerequisites, but is minimally sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description merely restates the parameter's purpose ('Port to stop') and default, adding little value over the schema's type and default fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('preview HTTP server'), with the port parameter. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'start_preview_server'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (stopping a server started with 'start_preview_server') and provides the port parameter with default. It does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but the sibling relationship is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states adding frames and optional duration, but does not disclose side effects like shifting existing frames, effect on cels, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-sentence description plus parameter list. Front-loaded with action. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose and parameters, but lacks behavioral context and return value description. No output schema to compensate; agent may need to infer effects on sprite.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains each parameter: filename (file to modify), count (number of frames), duration_ms (optional duration). Adds meaning beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Add multiple frames to a sprite' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'add_frame' which likely adds a single frame.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for adding frames but provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'add_frame', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it sets the sprite grid, adds the layer, and notes tile index 0 is empty. However, it omits details on side effects, error conditions, or whether existing content is affected, limiting transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a brief explanation and neatly formatted Args. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return values or constraints, but overall is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify', 'Tile width in pixels'), adding significant value beyond the schema's plain titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a tilemap layer with its own tileset, specifying the action and resource. It also explains the effect on the sprite grid and the empty tile convention, distinguishing it from other layer creation tools like add_layer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions draw_on_tile as a companion, it lacks advice on when to choose this over other layer creation tools or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral load. It mentions discarding content but does not specify that it modifies the file in-place, whether it affects all frames, or if it is irreversible. Lacks details on mutation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a succinct docstring with a clear action sentence followed by parameter list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema or annotations; description explains parameters and basic effect but omits return value, error conditions, whether it affects all frames or only current, and the scope of the destructive operation. Adequate but leaves gaps for a file-modifying tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all 5 parameters (filename, x, y, width, height) with clear docstrings. Provides meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Crop the canvas to the given rectangle, discarding content outside it.' Clearly specifies verb (crop), resource (canvas), and effect (discard). Distinguishes from sibling resize_canvas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage via tool name and brief action, but does not explicitly state when to use vs resize_canvas or other alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the scale parameter details (nearest-neighbor scaling, default 1) and the export action. However, it does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing output files, whether it modifies the original file, or any error conditions. This is adequate for a simple export but lacks comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for the core function, a short usage hint, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameters. However, it does not specify the return value (if any), whether the output file is created absolutely/relative, or potential side effects. For a straightforward export, this might be sufficient, but it lacks some contextual details that would help an agent use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter documentation is essential. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'filename: Aseprite file to export', 'frame_index: Frame index starting at 1', 'output_filename: Output PNG path', and 'scale: Integer nearest-neighbor scale factor (default 1)'. This compensates well for the lacking schema descriptions, though it could be more detailed (e.g., file path handling).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Export a single frame as a PNG, optionally scaled up,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by focusing on a single frame and PNG format, it does not explicitly contrast with tools like export_sprite or export_layers, so it misses the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete use case: 'Use this for visual feedback while drawing: export at scale 8-10 and open the PNG to inspect the result, then keep iterating.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that 'the layer is created if it does not exist' and implies the tool modifies the file, but omits side effects (e.g., whether existing content on the layer is overwritten) and does not mention any required permissions or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured with a short introductory paragraph followed by a clear parameter list. No extraneous text, but the parameter descriptions could be condensed slightly by removing the repeated 'parameter: meaning' pattern.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (if anything) or how to handle errors. Given the tool has 6 parameters (3 required) and modifies a file, additional context about success indicators or failure modes would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that adds meaning to each parameter (e.g., 'filename: Aseprite file to modify', 'image_path: Image file to import'). This significantly aids understanding, though it could specify accepted file formats or path constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Import'), the resource ('image file'), and the target ('into a layer of the sprite'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also mentions supported formats (PNG, etc.), which adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says it's 'useful for bringing in reference images or composing pre-made parts' and notes it 'works best when the sprite is in RGB color mode', but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., copy_region, draw_pixels).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation (set) and opacity range, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, file state requirements, or undo behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one line for purpose followed by an efficient Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key inputs and range. It could mention that the tool modifies the sprite file in-place or requires the file to be open, but it is largely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args block provides meaning for all 4 parameters, including the range for opacity and that frame_index starts at 1. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'opacity of a single cel', including the valid range 0-255. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tween_cel_opacity_eased' which handle animated transitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting opacity instantly but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., tween_cel_opacity_eased). No exclusions or caveats are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only opaque pixels are affected and specifies the adjustment ranges, but it does not mention side effects, destructive nature, file saving requirements, or whether the change is irreversible. This leaves notable gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear main sentence followed by a structured argument list. The example use cases add helpful context without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Shift hue, saturation, and lightness' is restated in args), but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool modifies a cel in an Aseprite file, but the description does not explain the return value, undo capability, or prerequisite state (e.g., whether the layer must exist). Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, more information would be needed for full context, though the parameter details are thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in detail (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify', 'Layer to adjust', 'Degrees to rotate hue, -360 to 360'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, enabling correct parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Shift hue, saturation, and lightness of all opaque pixels in a cel.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from generalized color adjustment tools. The inclusion of the cel scope and opaque pixels makes 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides use cases (e.g., palette-swapped variants, shading for shadows or night scenes) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'adjust_hsl_native' or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied through examples rather than explicit directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It states duplication and appending but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does original range remain unchanged? Are existing frames shifted? No mention of error handling or mutability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one-line summary then bulleted args. Each sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 params and no output schema, it explains the operation and all parameters. Could mention effect on timeline (e.g., total frames count increases) or error conditions, but generally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully documents each parameter: filename, start_frame (1-based), end_frame (1-based inclusive), times (default 1). Adds essential meaning beyond schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'duplicate' and resource 'frame range', with specifics about appending copies. Distinguishes from siblings like copy_frame (single frame) and add_frame (empty frame).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, nor alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use cases; lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers inheritance of opacity and blend mode, and placement options, but omits details like error handling, behavior if layer not found, or effects on selection. Some behavioral aspects remain unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by behavioral notes and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the moderate complexity of duplicating layers across frames, the description covers key aspects: what is duplicated, inheritance, placement. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and naming conflict resolution, but is adequate for a tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args block provides clear definitions for each parameter, including defaults and path syntax. This compensates well for the schema gap, though some parameters like 'new_name' could be more detailed about default naming.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Duplicate a layer with all its cels across every frame,' specifying the exact verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_cel or duplicate_frame by clarifying it duplicates entire layers with all frames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the default placement and the group parameter but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_layer' or 'duplicate_frame_range'. There's no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format and that it reads pixel colors, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not state that the operation is non-destructive, required permissions, or performance implications for large regions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a well-structured docstring with a one-line purpose, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded with the key purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides the return format (JSON array of pixel objects). It covers all parameters. Minor gaps: does not mention coordinate origin, canvas bounds, or error conditions, but these are common knowledge. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed Args section with clear explanations for all 7 parameters, including defaults (e.g., layer_name defaults to active layer, frame_index defaults to 1). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read all pixel colors in a rectangular region.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pixel_color (single pixel) and get_composite_rect (composite colors).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pixel_color, get_composite_rect). The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states that alpha is preserved and gives tolerance parameter. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (it modifies the file directly), if it creates undo points, or any authorization needs. Basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence for purpose followed by a clear argument list. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description explains all parameters sufficiently. It does not describe the return value or side effects, but the operation is straightforward (replace color in a cel). Minor omission: no mention of whether the file is saved automatically.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It fully explains all 6 parameters, including types and examples (e.g., 'Hex color to replace, e.g. "#FF0000"', 'Per-channel tolerance 0-255 (default 0 = exact match)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace one color with another in a cel, preserving alpha.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'erase_color' (which erases a color) and 'remap_colors_in_cel_range' (which operates on a range).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it (e.g., for erasing, use erase_color).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. States it only sets palette without modifying pixels and hints at post-processing. Lacks details on whether palette is replaced or merged, and no mention of reversibility or side effects. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences followed by Args section. Front-loaded with core action and context. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core behavior, distinguishes from sibling, suggests follow-up tool. Lacks error handling or format constraints, but for a simple two-param tool without output schema, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0%, so description must compensate. Lists example presets for 'preset' parameter, adding value beyond schema titles. However, does not specify format or full list, though sibling list_palette_presets exists. Minimal additional meaning for 'filename'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Set' with specific resource 'sprite palette'. Explicitly states it applies 'built-in retro presets', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_palette (which likely allows arbitrary palettes) and quantize_to_palette (which snaps pixels).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit context: 'only sets the palette; existing pixels keep their colors' and suggests using quantize_to_palette afterwards. Implicitly distinguishes from set_palette by focusing on presets. No explicit when-not-to-use but sufficient for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that output_directory is created if missing and include_hidden defaults to False. Lacks details on error handling, file format requirements, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clean Args structure. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers key parameters and basic behavior. Lacks details on return values or error handling, but sufficient for a straightforward export tool given no output schema or annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters (filename as Aseprite file, output_directory auto-creation, include_hidden default). Compensates well for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool exports each layer as a separate PNG file with a specific naming convention. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_sprite or export_spritesheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for exporting layers individually, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives like export_spritesheet.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the 1-based position semantics but does not disclose whether the operation modifies the file in-place, requires the file to be open, or has side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, with a clear opening sentence followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the key positional information is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple modification tool with three parameters, the description covers the core semantics (especially position). However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or confirmation that the file is modified. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context: filename is 'Aseprite file to modify', layer_name is 'Layer to move', and position is 'Target stack position, 1-based where 1 is the bottom layer'. This significantly clarifies the parameters beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move a layer to a new position in the layer stack,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_layer, delete_layer, and rename_layer by focusing on reordering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (reordering layers) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though no sibling tool duplicates this functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions create_if_missing and source_frame_index parameters, which add some behavioral context, but lacks details on side effects like file modification or overwriting behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a clear docstring with an Args list, but could be slightly more concise; still well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function and parameters, but does not clarify return value or whether changes are permanent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description provides full parameter meanings via the Args list, which adds essential context beyond the schema's titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a cel's position in a specific layer and frame' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like offset_cel_positions or tween_cel_positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for setting a single cel's position but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it compared to alternatives like move_region or offset_cel_positions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads the composited result of all visible layers (not a single cel), and mentions the flattened composite nature. It also details the return format. While it doesn't mention side effects (none expected) or performance implications, it is sufficiently transparent for a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a summary line, contrast, and then bulleted Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it uses a numpy-style docstring format which is slightly verbose; each sentence contributes, but some parts like 'Args:' could be more concise. Still, it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides enough context for using this tool among over 100 siblings. It names the sibling get_composite_pixel directly, which helps agents disambiguate. It explains the return format (JSON array of objects), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention related tools like get_pixels_rect or when to prefer this over other reading tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists all 6 parameters in Args format, and adds some semantics like 'sprite-global' for x and y. However, the schema itself has titles but no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description adds moderate value. For parameters like width and height, the description 'Region width' and 'Region height' is tautological, adding little beyond the schema. The default for frame_index is mentioned. Overall, it compensates for schema gaps but not exceptionally.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads composite RGBA over a rectangle from all visible layers, and distinguishes itself from get_composite_pixel by specifying it is the rectangular counterpart. The verb 'Read' and resource 'composite rectangle' are explicit, and the differentiation from a sibling tool (get_composite_pixel) is immediate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by comparing to get_composite_pixel, implying that for a rectangular region this tool is appropriate while for a single pixel the other is used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other similar reading tools (e.g., get_pixels_rect), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives. Still, the comparison is helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: tile_index 0 is invalid, auto-append when tile_index equals current count, and that the tool modifies an Aseprite file. However, it does not mention undo capabilities, permission requirements, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured list of arguments. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description covers key aspects but lacks return value information and error handling details (e.g., behavior when tile_index is invalid except for note about 0 and auto-append). Given no output schema, a hint about what the tool returns would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description explains all 4 parameters clearly: filename, layer_name, tile_index (1-based index, 0 reserved), and pixels (format). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it draws pixels onto a tile in a tilemap layer's tileset, with tile-local coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like draw_pixels (general pixel drawing) and set_tiles (sets entire tiles). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides contextual help (tile-local coordinates, auto-append) but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools for tilemap editing such as set_tiles or get_tile_at, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Some usage guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the algorithm (RGB distance) and that only opaque pixels are affected. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the palette itself is modified, if the operation is reversible, or if there are any destructive aspects beyond pixel changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two paragraphs: first the core action, then usage context and parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information; no fluff. It is front-loaded and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and the tool's mutation nature, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and algorithm. It does not specify return values or confirmation, but for a tool that modifies a file, this is acceptable. It relates well to siblings like apply_palette_preset.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists all four parameters with their roles and defaults (filename required, layer_name, start_frame, end_frame). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, though it does not elaborate on edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: snapping each pixel to the nearest palette color. It specifies the resource (sprite's palette) and provides context on when to run (after apply_palette_preset or set_palette), distinguishing it from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool (after apply_palette_preset or set_palette) and its purpose (making existing art conform to the palette). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools among siblings, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tiles parameter structure (col, row, tile_index) and notes that tile_index 0 clears the cell. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether validation occurs, or what the return format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence followed by a succinct list of args. Every sentence is essential and provides value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks information on return values, error conditions (e.g., invalid tile index, non-tilemap layer), and side effects. It is adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: filename, layer_name, frame_index, and the tiles array with its sub-fields and special meaning of tile_index 0. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Place tiles on a tilemap layer by grid position', specifying the verb 'place', the resource 'tiles', and the context of tilemap layer by grid coordinates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tilemap_layer or draw_on_tile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for placing multiple tiles at specific grid positions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., layer must be a tilemap layer) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool adds a 'new, empty' group layer and describes parameters, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., if parent_group doesn't exist), file state prerequisites, or side effects. Minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two main sentences plus a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings well. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a simple modification tool, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions, but the Args section in the description adds full meaning: 'filename' as the file to modify, 'group_name' as the new group name, and 'parent_group' as an optional path with default top-level behavior. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add a new, empty group layer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_layer and duplicate_layer by explaining how to combine them, 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to 'Combine with add_layer(group=...) / duplicate_layer(group=...) to build a grouped layer structure', providing clear context on when to use this tool and its relation to alternatives. No explicit exclusions but sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the Bayer dithering algorithm, gradient direction (top-left to bottom-right, configurable to horizontal), and parameter defaults. It does not mention side effects (overwrites existing content) or performance, but the core behavior is well explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose in the Args list but well-organized and easy to parse. Minor redundancy: 'This is the classic pixel-art way' repeats the technique context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameter-rich tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, algorithm, parameter details, and defaults. Missing error conditions (invalid hex, layer not found) and return value, but these are secondary for a file-modifying tool. Adequate for an AI agent to understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The Args section adds significant meaning beyond schema titles: 'filename: Aseprite file to modify', 'color_start: Hex color', 'horizontal: Run the gradient left-to-right'. This compensates for 0% schema description coverage. Lacks explicit format for hex values (e.g., with/without #), but still provides clear intent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fill a rectangle with a two-color gradient using Bayer 4x4 ordered dithering,' specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like apply_dither_pattern (pattern not gradient) and apply_gradient_rect (smooth gradient) by highlighting the pixel-art method without new colors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pixel art color blending without introducing intermediate colors, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like apply_gradient_rect or apply_dither_pattern, or when not to use it. Lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that the sprite is flattened non-destructively and that pixel-by-pixel diffing is used. It also describes the return format (JSON with pixel counts and bounding box), offering transparency beyond just the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief behavioral explanation, a bulleted parameter list, and a return description. Every part adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (changed pixel count, total pixels, percent changed, bounding box). It is complete enough for a comparison tool, though edge cases or error conditions are not mentioned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: filename, frame_a, and frame_b, including that frame indices start at 1. This meaningfully supplements the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing two frames and reporting differences. It provides a specific use case ('Use while animating to confirm a frame actually changed') which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on creation, deletion, or modification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions when to use the tool (during animation to check for changes), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling frame-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description discloses that it composites visible layers by flattening a throwaway clone, implying non-destructive read. It explains the visual outcome ('what the player actually sees') but doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a brief purpose, distinction from sibling, and a docstring. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise as the first line repeats some info from later.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but given no output schema, it lacks specification of the return format (e.g., RGBA tuple). It is otherwise complete for a simple getter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an Args section with descriptions for all 4 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. For example, it explains that x/y are sprite-global coordinates and frame_index starts at 1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it reads the RGBA colour visible at a pixel, composite of all layers. It explicitly distinguishes from get_pixel_color which reads a single cel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool (value/CVD QA on grouped/multi-layer scenes) and contrasts with get_pixel_color. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools beyond the one sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly indicates this is a read-only operation ('Read') and specifies the return format. It lacks explicit statements about side effects (none) or error conditions, but the read behavior is adequately conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No redundant information. Front-loads the purpose. Every part adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the return format (JSON with tile_index) and explains the special meaning of 0. With no output schema, this is helpful. However, edge cases (out-of-range, missing layer) are not addressed, though for a simple read it's nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning for all 5 parameters, including file type, layer context, frame index starting at 1, and 0-based coordinates. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read) and resource (tile at a grid position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'draw_on_tile' (modifies) and 'get_tilemap_info' (overview) by specifying it reads a single tile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing to inspect a tile at a specific coordinate, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tilemap_info' or 'draw_on_tile'. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: source area becomes transparent, pixels outside canvas are discarded, and fully transparent source pixels do not overwrite. This gives the agent a good understanding of side effects and edge cases. It could mention undo behavior or permissions, but the core transparency is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using two paragraphs: the first explains behavior, the second lists parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the operation and parameter semantics well. It explains what happens to source and destination pixels. It lacks information about return values, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Minor gap: no mention of any prerequisites or validation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It includes an Args section explaining all 9 parameters (filename, layer_name, frame_index, x, y, width, height, dest_x, dest_y) with clear context. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Cut a rectangular region of pixels and paste it at a new position,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like copy_region (copy without cut) and erase_region (erase only). Additional details about coordinates, source transparency, and pixel discarding further clarify the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., copy_region for copying). It implies use for moving a region but lacks guidance on scenarios or exclusions. The context is clear but not comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the operation and mentions it uses Aseprite's native command, but does not specify whether it modifies the layer in-place or creates a new one, nor any destructive aspects. Adequate but could be more specific about side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five sentences including the parameter list, no fluff. Structured logically: purpose, comparison, best use case, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return value or mutation behavior, but for the complexity it is quite complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args block with concise explanations for each parameter, adding constraints like 'outside' or 'inside' and '#RRGGBB' format. This compensates well for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it applies a native Aseprite outline around opaque pixels. Distinguishes from sibling outline_cel by mentioning higher quality with inside/outside placement and circle/square brush.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool over outline_cel (higher quality), and mentions best use case (full-canvas cel). No misuse scenarios needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Clearly states mutation ('writes the resulting palette to the sprite and returns it. NOTE: mutates the sprite's palette'), RGB mode requirement, and return format. Lacks error or edge-case details but covers core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then differentiation, side effects, then args. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input parameters well, explains behavior (mutation, RGB mode), provides return format. No output schema, but return format given. Missing error handling or file existence info, but adequate for a 3-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description includes 'Args' section explaining each parameter: filename (Aseprite file to modify), max_colors (cap 1-256, fewer if art has fewer), with_alpha (include alpha). Adds meaning beyond schema titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Build an OPTIMAL palette from the sprite via native ColorQuantization.' Immediately contrasts with sibling quantize_to_palette, clarifying it does true extraction. Specifies it writes palette to sprite and returns it, with RGB mode requirement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly differentiates from quantize_to_palette (nearest-snap vs true extraction). Notes prerequisite (RGB mode) and that it mutates the sprite, implying usage when a new palette is needed. Could mention when not to use (e.g., read-only scenarios) but sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates this is a read-only operation returning a JSON string. However, it does not mention whether any state changes occur (likely none) or any authorization needed. For a simple inspection tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences plus an argument definition. The core purpose is stated immediately. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully adequate. It lists the key fields returned and the argument, leaving no critical gaps for a user to understand how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides the parameter name 'filename' with type string. The description adds valuable semantics by stating it is the 'Name of the Aseprite file to inspect', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb 'Return' and specifies the resource 'sprite info as JSON string' with concrete fields (size, color mode, frame durations, layers, tags). This immediately distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform modifications or animations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool returns sprite info, implying it is for inspection purposes. While it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are mostly mutation-oriented, so the context strongly suggests using this for read-only queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that tile_count excludes the empty tile 0, adding specific behavioral context. However, it does not mention error conditions or side effects, which would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return structure. It could mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., tilemap layer existence) but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: 'filename: Aseprite file to read' and 'layer_name: Tilemap layer to inspect'. This compensates completely for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves tilemap layer info (tile size, tile count, map dimensions). It uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_tile_at' and 'set_tiles'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use for inspecting tilemap layers but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context is clear among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adequately describes a read-only list operation returning a JSON array, without needing to disclose side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and return format with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the needed context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameters, so the description adds value by stating the output is a JSON array of names, meeting the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists built-in convolution-matrix names usable with apply_convolution, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving matrix names for apply_convolution and specifies the return format, though it doesn't explicitly provide when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the output format (JSON object mapping preset name to hex colors) and implies no side effects. Since the tool is simple and read-only, the description is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second describes the return format. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells what the tool does and what it returns, which is all that is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per guidelines. No parameter information is needed, so the description does not need to add any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists built-in retro palette presets with their colors. The verb 'list' and resource 'palette presets' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'apply_palette_preset' (which applies a preset) and 'get_palette' (which retrieves the current palette), 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving available presets before applying them. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given its simplicity and lack of side effects, the guidance is clear enough. No alternative listing tool exists among siblings, so usage context is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Flattens the sprite (non-destructively) and histograms the frame.' It also describes the return format (JSON with unique color count, opaque pixel count, top colors). This provides sufficient transparency for an AI to understand side effects and output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a one-sentence overview, a usage hint, then an args list, and return description. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return. It explains the tool's operation and expected outcome completely for an analysis tool. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: filename, frame_index (default 1), top (default 16). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making parameter semantics crystal clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report the colors used in a frame and how often each appears.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (colors in a frame), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on color histogram analysis rather than palette extraction or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete use case: 'Use to check palette discipline: too many near-duplicate colors is a common pixel-art mistake.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an AI to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool produces a PNG, composites ghosted copies, and is non-destructive (renders only). It could mention that it does not modify the original file, but the behavior is well implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a paragraph of context and a bullet-style parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It explains the output format (PNG), the purpose of onion skinning, and all parameters with defaults. No gaps remain for an AI agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description covers all 7 parameters with clear explanations (e.g., frame_index starts at 1, before/after defaults, ghost_opacity range). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it renders a frame with translucent onion-skin ghosts as a PNG. It explicitly connects the tool to checking motion continuity in animation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_frame or set_onion_skin by describing the batch-mode onion skinning use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (export for verifying in-between positions) but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it. However, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide based on the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It discloses batch mode, filename opening behavior, no auto-save, print() as only return, coordinate offsets for cels, and unrestricted code execution risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose and usage rule. Essentials section is verbose but adds value. Warning is appropriately emphasized. Could trim redundant phrasing like 'they are Lua underneath'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, description covers core behaviors very well. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling, timeouts, or resource constraints. Still nearly complete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero description coverage. Description adds brief meaning: 'script: Lua source code to execute', 'filename: Optional Aseprite file to open before running'. While helpful, it lacks details like script length limits or filename format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Execute arbitrary Aseprite Lua code in batch mode (escape hatch)'. It specifies verb, resource, and distinguishes from over 80 sibling tools by positioning itself as a fallback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guideline: 'Use this when no dedicated tool covers what you need.' Also notes that curated tools are Lua underneath, implying alternative use of those. Includes security warning to not pass untrusted scripts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the hue-shifting behavior (shadows cooler, highlights warmer), specifies the return format (JSON array of hex colors), and details arguments including defaults and ranges. This provides complete transparency for an agent to understand side effects and results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two introductory paragraphs plus a labeled Args list. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal yet informative language. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, algorithmic behavior, parameter details including defaults and ranges, and return format. An agent has sufficient information to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning only type info is provided. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: base_color with example, steps with range (2-16) and default 5, hue_shift_degrees default 20, lightness_range default 0.5. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it generates a shading ramp from a base color using hue-shifting for pixel-art shading. The verb 'generate' and resource 'color ramp' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from plain darker/lighter versions of the same hue. Among siblings, it uniquely focuses on color ramp generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use the returned colors for shading instead of plain darker/lighter versions of the same hue.' It provides clear context for pixel-art shading. While it does not explicitly compare to siblings like adjust_hsl or palette-related tools, the guidance is sufficient for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aseprite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZeroTian/aseprite-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZeroTian/aseprite-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aseprite-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZeroTian/aseprite-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ZeroTian/aseprite-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ZeroTian/aseprite-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server