apply_dither_gradient

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.