aseprite_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that the tool reports a 'connection status with Aseprite' (implying it is callable even when disconnected) and enumerates the returned data, but it never explicitly states that it is read-only / side-effect free or what happens when no document is open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, enumerating the returned fields (dimensions, color mode, layers, frames, active layer/frame, revision) is exactly the missing information. It stops short of describing the structure or types of those values, which is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain arguments, and none are introduced.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('connection status with Aseprite, open document details...') and enumerates the exact payload contents. It does not distinguish itself from siblings with overlapping scope such as get_sprite_info, inspect_sprite, or get_canvas, so an agent cannot tell which status-like tool to prefer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_sprite_info, inspect_sprite, get_canvas, or list_layers/list_frames, which appear to return overlapping data. No prerequisites (e.g., an active Aseprite connection) are stated either.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.