aseprite_run_lua_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as 'unsafe' but does not elaborate on risks (e.g., crashes, file system access). Insufficient detail for an agent to understand behavioral implications.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it could benefit from a brief expansion to cover how to use it. As is, it is concise but not optimally structured for completeness.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what input the tool expects (e.g., script content via context or other means), leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not explain how to provide the script content. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description adds no value; it fails to clarify invocation mechanism, making the tool confusing.

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 action 'Run' and the resource 'raw Lua script', and adds context 'advanced / unsafe'. However, it lacks specificity on how the script is provided (no parameters in schema), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 says 'advanced / unsafe' hinting at careful use, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aseprite_list_lua_templates or other scripting tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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