aseprite_doctor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the high-level behavior (find, validate, report) and reveals the read-only-looking nature of the tool, but omits details like what happens on failure, whether any files are modified, or what format the capability flags/report take.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, argument semantics in a structured block. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 a single-optional-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the mode-select logic. It does not detail the output structure or failure modes, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema and no annotations to backfill the behavior, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter, 'mode', listing both valid values ('full', 'path') and the purpose of the non-default choice. This gives an agent everything it needs to set the parameter correctly.

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?

Description states precise actions: find, validate version/Lua, report capability flags. This clearly differentiates it from sibling sprite tools (preview, inspect, patch, export, commit) which all handle sprite files rather than the Aseprite environment itself.

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?

Provides clear context for choosing between modes ('full' default vs 'path' for quick binary check), which is directly actionable for the agent. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the diagnostic purpose makes the intended use obvious in context.

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