Export an animation tag from an Aseprite file to an image or animation file, verifying the tag exists first.
Export an animation tag as an image or animation file after validating that the tag exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| tag_name | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one trait — validating that the tag exists — but omits other important behaviors: it creates a file on disk, whether existing files are overwritten, how output format is determined, and what error occurs when the tag is missing.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. The purpose, output type, and a behavioral note are all packed cleanly, though slightly more detail would be justified given the uncovered parameters.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. Two of four parameters (filename, scale) are undocumented everywhere, and no usage alternatives are mentioned. An agent would need to guess at source semantics and scaling behavior before calling 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly maps 'tag' to tag_name and 'image or animation file' to output_filename, but leaves filename (likely the source asset) and scale (output scaling factor) completely unexplained. The compensation is partial at best.
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 ('Export'), a clear resource ('an animation tag'), and the output type ('image or animation file'). It also mentions a validation step that adds precision. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling export_animation_gif, which also exports animation output.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_animation_gif, export_spritesheet, export_frame, or export_layers. The word 'tag' implies the selection unit, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.