Audit animation cels, overlaps, and declared frame ranges to identify invalid frames and out-of-range cels in Aseprite files.
Audit animation cels, overlaps, and declared frame ranges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| end_frame | No | ||
| layer_names | No | ||
| report_cels | No | ||
| start_frame | No | ||
| max_overlaps | No | ||
| overlap_pairs | No | ||
| report_bounds | No | ||
| max_out_of_range | No | ||
| layer_frame_ranges | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'audit' without clarifying whether it is read-only, whether it modifies the file, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely produces a report or validation results.
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 a single, efficient sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so short that it provides minimal additional value beyond the tool name, and it does not structure any additional context. It is not verbose but also not sufficiently informative.
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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly, what inputs are expected, or what the output will be. The description fails to cover essential context for a tool of this complexity.
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 by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'cels, overlaps, and declared frame ranges,' which hints at the tool's purpose but does not explain any of the 10 parameters like filename, start_frame, end_frame, layer_names, report_cels, max_overlaps, overlap_pairs, report_bounds, max_out_of_range, or layer_frame_ranges. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb (Audit) and resources (animation cels, overlaps, declared frame ranges), which clearly distinguishes it from other audit tools like audit_asset_library. However, it does not explicitly tie it to a file or sprite, though the name and context imply it. It is clear enough for an agent to know the tool's function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_animation_quality or animation_sanitize. It only states what it does, not the conditions under which it is the preferred choice. An agent must infer usage from the name and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.