aseprite_inspect_pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output format (text rows, palette legend, '.' for transparent pixels) and references a safety limit via maxPixels, which is useful. However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor whether it requires an open document or has any cost/auth implications.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool produces and following with the comparison and the key output convention. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by explaining the text-row/palette-legend format and the transparency marker. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the read-only nature or behavior when maxPixels is exceeded, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (frame, document, maxPixels) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only the '.' transparency convention, which describes output rather than parameter meaning.

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 ('Dump a frame as text rows, one character per pixel') and immediately clarifies the output form with a palette legend. The phrase 'Cheaper and more precise than an image' distinguishes it from the image-based siblings like aseprite_view and aseprite_export_png.

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 a clear condition for use: 'when you only need to verify exact pixel positions or check a symmetric arrangement.' This implicitly routes agents away from the heavier image tools, though it names no sibling explicitly and states no true exclusion case.

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