ase_draw_rectangleDraw filled or outlined rectangles onto pixel-art sprites in Pixelworks by providing sprite path, position, size, and color, with optional frame and layer targeting.
Draw a rectangle (filled or outline).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| frame | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| filled | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'draw a rectangle (filled or outline)' and omits key details like whether it overwrites existing pixels, how it interacts with the active frame/layer, or what color format is expected. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness; it would benefit from a second sentence providing context.
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 (9 parameters, no annotations) and the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't address coordinate origin, color format, default frame/layer behavior, or any return values, leaving an agent to guess critical call 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% with 9 parameters (6 required), and the description adds almost no parameter meaning. The only hint is 'filled or outline', which maps to the 'filled' parameter, but x, y, width, height, color, sprite_path, frame, and layer are left completely unexplained.
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 ('draw') and a specific shape ('rectangle'), and mentions the filled/outline option, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like ase_draw_line or ase_draw_circle. However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternatives or state the sprite context, which prevents a 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ase_draw_pixels, ase_draw_line, or ase_fill_area. The purpose is implied by the name and brief description, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.