aseprite_pick_color

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully signals that the value is 'final composited' (i.e., flattened across layers) and gives the return shape ('hex plus RGBA'), which is real behavioral value. But it omits any permission/auth notes, coordinate-space semantics, and whether hidden layers count.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return format. No filler; every phrase 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, so the description's 'Returns hex plus RGBA' is necessary and helps. However, with no annotations and undocumented x/y parameters, the definition leaves key invocation details (coordinate space, frame/layer determinism of 'composited') 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 coverage is only 50%: 'frame' and 'document' are documented, but 'x' and 'y' are bare integers. With no annotations and an incomplete schema, the description should clarify the coordinate origin (canvas vs. sprite bounds) and units, but says nothing beyond 'a single pixel'.

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 ('Read the final composited colour at a single pixel') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling aseprite_inspect_pixels by scoping to one pixel. It is clear, though it never explicitly names that sibling or contrast it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must be open). The agent must infer usage entirely from the description and schema.

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