outline_native

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.