Ase Compare Frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only diff operation but does not explicitly state it does not modify the sprite. It also introduces 'flattened sprite' without explaining whether flattening is performed automatically or assumed, leaving ambiguity. It does disclose the output nature but lacks side-effect clarity.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and outputs, the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description does not address potential edge cases like out-of-range frame indices, the meaning of 'flattened' (whether it flattens the sprite or expects a flattened file), or error behavior. For a simple diff tool with only three parameters, this is a moderate gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'two frames' and 'flattened sprite', implying frame_a and frame_b are frame indices, and sprite_path is the file path, but it does not specify indexing (zero-based vs. one-based) or any constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's type hints.

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's function: 'Diff two frames of the flattened sprite' and enumerates the outputs (changed pixel count, percent, bounding box). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on frame comparison, which no other ase_* tool does. The resource and verb are specific.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use while animating to confirm a frame actually changed (or did not change too much).' This tells when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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