aseprite_export_sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait: output is numbered per-frame files rather than a single image. However, it says nothing about whether an existing output directory is created or overwritten, or what the call returns, which are relevant for an export side-effect tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first defines the behavior and output shape, the second gives the use case. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry return/side-effect context, and it partially does by describing the produced files and naming pattern. Given the fully documented schema and the straightforward export purpose, this is nearly complete, missing only overwrite/permission behavior.

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 100% across all five parameters, so the schema already documents name, scale, format, document, and outputDir with defaults. The description echoes the default PNG naming pattern but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Export every frame as its own numbered PNG') and demonstrates the output naming convention with a concrete example (hero_000.png, hero_001.png). It implicitly separates itself from aseprite_export_sprite_sheet by framing it as the alternative to a packed sheet, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

'Use this when an engine or artist wants individual frames rather than a packed sheet' gives a clear selection condition and contrasts with the packed-sheet alternative. It stops short of naming aseprite_export_sprite_sheet explicitly, so the routing requires a small inference.

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