run_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions running a script and drawing/modifying, but fails to disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (such as Aseprite already running), or that scripts can execute arbitrary code. This is a significant gap for a script execution 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and use case.

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?

The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context about side effects and requirements. It gives a clear purpose but omits important details like the need for Aseprite to be running or the arbitrary nature of Lua scripts, leaving it slightly incomplete.

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% for the 'script' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter itself—it only restates the purpose. Since the schema already explains the parameter, no extra credit is given.

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?

The description clearly states the tool runs a custom Lua script in Aseprite and specifies the purpose of procedural drawing/modification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_aseprite, create_project, and draw_asset, which have more specific or different functions.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to procedurally draw/modify sprites, animations, or projects,' giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly reference alternatives, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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