Retrieves information about an open Aseprite document using session and document IDs, enabling AI clients to inspect current or unsaved canvases before reading or editing.
读取显式内存文档，标识仅在当前会话有效。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| document_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses two useful traits: the document is in memory, and identifiers are session-scoped and therefore invalid across sessions. It says nothing about what happens when the document is missing or the session has expired, nor does it state explicitly that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 读取.
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?
There is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. However, it is too terse for the information the description needs to convey, and it is not front-loaded around any usage or parameter guidance.
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?
This tool has two required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should explain much more. It covers basic scope and the session lifetime but omits return content, error conditions, and parameter meaning.
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 must compensate, but it does so only weakly. It hints that the identifier (标识) is session-bound, which touches document_id and session_id, but it does not clarify the format of either parameter or the difference between the two required parameters.
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 names a read operation on an 'in-memory document' (读取显式内存文档), which partially clarifies the resource. However, the tool name promises 'document info' while the description says only 'read', leaving the actual output purpose (that is, metadata versus content) ambiguous. It also does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool list_documents.
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 only usage context is the constraint that the identifier is valid only within the current session (标识仅在当前会话有效), which implies a session-scoped workflow. It does not say when to use this tool instead of list_documents or get_preview, and it does not name any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.