copy_sprite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic copy action and lists parameters, but omits side effects like file creation, overwrite behavior details, or whether the source sprite remains unchanged. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: one summary line followed by three parameter bullets. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 description covers parameters but lacks details on return values (e.g., success message, file path) and prerequisites (e.g., source sprite must exist, output directory must exist). For a simple copy tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Although the input schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description provides clear one-liners for each parameter: filename (source file), output_filename (target .aseprite file), and overwrite (boolean for overwrite). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles, though it could include format constraints.

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 'Copy a sprite to a new Aseprite file', specifying the action (copy), resource (sprite), and target (new file). This differentiates it from siblings like copy_cel or copy_frame, which operate on sub-components.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as copy_cel or copy_layers_between_sprites. The description does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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