Produce a static PNG scene, animated GIF, and navigation manifests in a single deterministic run, yielding Godot-compatible assets for Aseprite projects.
Build a static PNG scene, animated GIF scene, and both navigation manifests through one deterministic operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| frames | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| padding | No | ||
| delay_ms | No | ||
| item_ids | Yes | ||
| output_prefix | Yes |
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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'deterministic operation' which hints at predictability but does not mention side effects, required permissions, output structure, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a tool that builds multiple outputs.
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 sentence with no fluff, clearly stating the core purpose. It is appropriately concise but lacks the depth needed to cover parameters or usage context. It is well-structured for the little it conveys.
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 tool with seven parameters (four required) and no output schema, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the outputs look like, what the parameters control, or any prerequisites. An agent would not know how to call this tool correctly without additional information.
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% and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters (item_ids, output_prefix, width, height, frames, padding, delay_ms). An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone, making this nearly useless for parameter understanding.
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 specific outputs (static PNG scene, animated GIF scene, navigation manifests) and the deterministic nature, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_animation_gif or build_animation_sheet. It is specific about the resource and action.
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 like build_animation_sheet or export_animation_gif. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.