ase_downsampleDownsamples pixel art sprites to a target size using bilinear filtering followed by nearest-neighbor to preserve crisp edges. Specify sprite path, width, height, and optional output path.
Box-ish downsample to target size (bilinear then nearest for pixel art).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| out_path | No | ||
| sprite_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the resampling method ('box-ish', 'bilinear then nearest'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the original file is modified, whether out_path is written, or what the tool returns.
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 sentence that leads with the action and uses a parenthetical to add algorithm detail. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
With no annotations, 0% parameter schema coverage, and only one sentence of description, this tool is under-specified. An agent would not know whether this saves to out_path, how it differs from ase_scale_sprite, or what the expected output is, despite the presence of an output schema.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter by name. 'Target size' hints at width and height, but sprite_path and out_path are left completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 action ('downsample to target size') and a specific algorithm ('bilinear then nearest for pixel art'), so an agent can tell it is a resampling operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ase_scale_sprite or ase_resize_canvas.
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 phrase 'for pixel art' provides an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_scale_sprite. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.