get_aseprite_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'get' implies a non-destructive read operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any potential failure modes, return format, or prerequisites beyond the implicit connection requirement. For a trivial getter, this is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the tool's purpose and is perfectly structured for quick consumption.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, straightforward purpose), the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention the return type or format of the version, but that is inferable from the tool name and common sense. There is no significant missing context for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because none exist. The schema already confirms an empty parameter set, and the description adds no extra parameter-related information, which is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('the version of the connected Aseprite instance'), which is specific and easily distinguishes this tool from all listed siblings. No other sibling deals with retrieving the application version.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever you need the version of the connected Aseprite instance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the singular purpose, no alternatives are necessary. This is a simple getter with no competing tools.

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