Ase Dither Gradient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the algorithm (Bayer 4x4 ordered-dither), the direction (top-to-bottom default, horizontal=true for left-to-right), and the coordinate system (sprite-global, cel normalized to canvas). It also notes the absence of intermediate colors, which is a critical behavioral trait. While it does not detail side effects like overwriting, the act of 'filling' is inherently clear.

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 three short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second covers direction, and the third clarifies the coordinate system. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior, direction, and coordinate system. It does not explain frame/layer defaults or color string format, but these are partly addressed by the schema defaults. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is complete enough for a drawing tool, with minor gaps in parameter details.

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 explains the rectangle dimensions (x, y, width, height) by referencing a rectangle and sprite-global coordinates, the two colors (color_start, color_end) as the two-color gradient, and the horizontal flag for direction. However, it does not explain the format for color strings, nor the meaning of frame and layer parameters, which are optional but present in the schema. It adds value beyond the schema but leaves some parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 action (fill a rectangle), the specific method (two-color Bayer 4x4 ordered-dither gradient), and the key constraint (no new intermediate colors). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ase_draw_rectangle or ase_fill_area by specifying the dithering algorithm and gradient nature, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 for creating dithered gradients between two colors, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_draw_with_dither or ase_fill_area. There is no statement about exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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