copy_sprite

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.