aseprite_open

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the path-resolution rule (absolute, or inside the art folder) and that it makes the file active, but says nothing about what happens to the previously active document, whether unsaved changes are lost, or the error behavior for a missing file.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the use case. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

Covers the essentials (what it opens, path rules, when to use it) for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens to the current active document and error handling for a nonexistent path.

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% and the sole parameter is documented there. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the path may be absolute or relative to the art folder, which resolves ambiguity about accepted path formats.

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 action (open an existing .aseprite file and make it active) and names the resource precisely. The word 'existing' implicitly contrasts with aseprite_create_sprite/aseprite_import_image, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 ('to continue work on a file, or to work on art the user already has'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming the create/import alternatives or stating exclusions, so it's a strong 4 rather than 5.

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