aseprite_export_png

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the default compositing of visible layers, the default frame (0), and that integer scales preserve crispness. It omits whether an existing file is overwritten and what authorization/path constraints exist for writing output.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loading the default behavior before the optional parameters. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally say what the tool returns (e.g., the written file path/how the agent learns where the PNG landed). It covers invocation semantics well but leaves the result side and overwrite behavior unstated.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the default frame index, the union of layers used when `frame` is omitted, and the pixel-crisp rationale for integer scaling. The `output` parameter's semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ("Export the sprite as a flat PNG") plus the composite semantics, which distinguishes it functionally from the gif/sheet/sequence siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear conditions for the optional parameters: default writes the first frame with all visible layers composited, pass `frame` for a specific frame, pass `scale` to upscale. It does not state when to prefer this over aseprite_export_sprite_sheet or aseprite_export_sequence, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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