aseprite_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the font is fixed at 5x7 and that non-ASCII characters degrade to "?" — a real behavioral caveat — but it never states that this mutates the target document/frame/layer, what happens on out-of-bounds coordinates, or any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool draws, followed by use cases, a limitation, and a parameter tip. No filler; every sentence adds actionable information.

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 8-parameter drawing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers font, use case, encoding limitation and scaling but omits the mutation semantics (which document/frame/layer gets altered) and error behavior. Adequate but with a real gap around what the call changes.

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 already 88%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by adding non-obvious guidance on the scale parameter (crisp results at 2 or 3) and the ASCII restriction on text that the schema's "ASCII text to draw" only hints at.

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 — drawing text with a named built-in 5x7 pixel font — which clearly separates it from the generic aseprite_draw sibling. The font identity and size constraint make the purpose unambiguous, though it never explicitly names how it differs from aseprite_draw.

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?

"Suitable for labels, UI mockups and small titles" gives concrete usage context, and the scale advice ("Use scale 2 or 3 for larger text") tells the agent how to handle a common variant. No when-not guidance or named alternative is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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