add_frame

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.