aseprite_export_sprite_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the output artifacts (PNG plus optional JSON) and a real behavioral concern (padding to prevent bleeding when scaled), but says nothing about output overwrite semantics, active-document fallback, or how the JSON relates to dataOutput. Useful but incomplete for a mutation-free but file-writing 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, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, then a compact clause covering the most useful knobs. No padding or redundancy, though the second sentence is a slightly loose list rather than a tight single idea.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits frame-range vs tag tradeoffs, layer splitting behavior, and the fact that relative paths land in the out folder (left to the schema). It covers enough for correct invocation but not for confident use across all options.

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%, so all 18 parameters are already documented. The description only name-drops tag, sheetType and padding, which duplicates schema content without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction details. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a sprite sheet PNG plus optional JSON metadata), and the framing 'the standard way to hand pixel-art animations to a game engine' scopes it against the sibling exporters (export_gif, export_sequence, export_png). An agent can tell this apart from the other export tools without opening a schema.

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 context for when to reach for it and hints at three selectors (tag, sheetType, padding). It stops short of naming an alternative such as export_png or export_sequence and saying when NOT to use this one, so no explicit when-not is present.

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