list_convolution_matrices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and lists built-in matrices, which implies no mutation. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether the list is exhaustive, or whether it reflects the current Aseprite version. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of detail about the return value (e.g., names, identifiers, or metadata) and how the list relates to apply_convolution. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on what the returned list contains would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds the key semantic context: the list is of built-in convolution matrices supported by Aseprite. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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 ('List') and resource ('built-in convolution matrices supported by Aseprite'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer it is an informational listing tool rather than a mutating one.

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 implies usage context: call this when you need to know which convolution matrices Aseprite supports, likely before using apply_convolution. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes apply_convolution, which gives the agent a natural pairing. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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