add_frames

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not mention important details such as where frames are inserted (end/beginning), behavior when the file is not found, or the return value. The scope of side effects (file modification) is implied but not elaborated.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity. Slightly more context could be added without hurting conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks important context: where frames are added, behavior for invalid inputs, and return value. The sibling tool 'add_frame' suggests a single-frame version, but no comparison is provided.

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 0%, so the description adds significant meaning via the Args block: filename is 'Name of the Aseprite file to modify', count is 'Number of frames to add', duration_ms is 'Optional duration for each new frame in milliseconds'. This compensates for the bare schema.

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 adds multiple frames to a sprite and optionally sets duration. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('frames to a sprite'), and the mention of 'multiple' distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_frame' tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single frame addition via 'add_frame'). There are no 'when-not' conditions or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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