Add a deterministic rain overlay to existing Aseprite sprites while preserving dimensions and frame timing. Set seed, wind, color, intensity, and delay.
Generate a deterministic rain overlay while preserving the source dimensions and frame timing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | Yes | ||
| wind | No | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| format | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| delay_ms | No | ||
| intensity | No | ||
| input_filename | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two useful traits: the output is deterministic (seed-based) and source dimensions/frame timing are preserved. However, it does not describe side effects, output file creation behavior, or how wind/intensity affect the overlay, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the core purpose and primary behavioral guarantees. However, it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, so it does not earn a 5, but it is structurally well-formed.
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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is seriously incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of any parameter, what the output looks like, how determinism works, or how dimensions/timing preservation is achieved. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the current definition.
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. It mentions none of the parameters: seed, wind, color, format, frames, delay_ms, intensity, input_filename, or output_filename. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond parameter names and types, which is inadequate for a 9-parameter tool.
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 tool generates a deterministic rain overlay and specifies that it preserves source dimensions and frame timing. This is a specific verb-resource pair and gives concrete distinguishing traits (determinism, preservation), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling effect generators.
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 about when to use this tool versus related alternatives like generate_water_reflection or generate_water_caustics. The description implies a use case but offers no exclusions or contextual decision points, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.